# Prosecute Climate Change Advocates



## Garpal Gumnut (30 January 2010)

It would appear that the global warming debate has been a combination of ignorance, misguided science, greedy opportunists and gullibility in equal measure, by those who argue in its favour.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that it is a load of codswallop.

Those who have profited from it; in a monetary, political or the gaining of career advantage, need to be prosecuted when it is finally debunked.

Billions of dollars, megalitres of petrol and avgas, and huge tracts of trees for documents have been wasted in its propagation.

The gullible I would leave be, they will find some other orthodoxy to follow no doubt once this silliness is over. Fools are fools.

gg


----------



## MACCA350 (30 January 2010)

The media and politicians alike seem to have gone quiet on the subject...........maybe they're hoping people will forget about the whole farce 

..........then again it could just be the holiday season, give them another week or so to get over their hangovers and they'll be back in full swing

cheers


----------



## Happy (30 January 2010)

In a meantime every above average temperature will be heralded as proof


----------



## SmellyTerror (30 January 2010)

> It is becoming increasingly apparent that it is a load of codswallop.




[citation needed]

Nah, not really. I don't think I want to touch this one with a barge pole. I've argued this before. 

But if you're going to say you know more than scientists who have spent decades building up their knowledge of a subject, I expect you'd have something SPECTACULAR. Just figured you should give it a mention when you start a new thread.

Not going to argue with it, because that's pointless. But I'd be interested to see it.


----------



## RamonR (30 January 2010)

It is increasingly obvious to the worlds scientist in this area that Global warming is real.

There is overwhelming consensus on this issue.

What I find is that older people who have managed to accumulate some wealth fight this tooth and nail because they won't be around to experience the negative factors and don't want the system that has worked for them changed.

I am no spring chicken but just in case this is real I want action taken now. It won't be a steady straight line increase in temps. There are greenhouse gases locked up in frozen deposits which will rapidly escalate the greenhouse effect.

I hope  GG is tight and I am wrong but I don't want to risk it.
We take out insurance against all sorts of risks to look at a carbon tax as a global insurance policy against the possibilty of Global warming.

Looks like George W Bush got somewhere with trying to change the name from  Global Warming to Climate change.
Could anybody really argue that the climate is not changing. It is changing all the time.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 January 2010)

I have no doubt that scientists should be treated with respect, however scientists who try to predict the future, in particular the weather deserve absolutely no respect.

Additionally when they conceal data that disproves their case as the University of East Anglia did , they cease to be worthy of the name scientist.

Even the UN is in on the scam. An organisation full of the bastard offspring of every tinpot dictator in Africa, Asia and Europe, should not promulgate that glaciers will melt in the Himalayas.

This is a particularly dastardly lie as the Indian head of the agency spreading this horse**** is paid an indecent salary to boot.

I won't get started on Al Gore.

gg


----------



## SmellyTerror (30 January 2010)

> Additionally when they conceal data that disproves their case as the University of East Anglia did , they cease to be worthy of the name scientist.




What information do you think they tried to conceal?

What is being said about the Himalayas, and why do you think it's wrong?

What the hell has Al Gore got to do with the Science? Or the membership of the UN? Or the salary of some bloke in India?

...in case I missed something.


----------



## explod (30 January 2010)

Well Well Garpal ole Pal,   looks like ya recovered from the extra workload on last Tuesday when all those bludgers on the payroll hada day off on Mondy, gotta hand it to ya holding the place togetha.

And back on topic



> I won't get started on Al Gore.
> 
> gg




Yep obviously another bludger who lost his way.

And agree on the scientists,  never seen it so dry in more than 60 years down here GG, love you to send one of you floods this way, but the point, some stupid scientist has treid to say it used to be this dry a long time ago in aerial pingpong country, he must be dreamin.

Keep up the good fight GG    but yaint gunna suck this old black duck in(strewth;  ya did, here I am), but you got a few others, must admit


----------



## RamonR (30 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have no doubt that scientists should be treated with respect, however scientists who try to predict the future, in particular the weather deserve absolutely no respect.




I base many decision upon predictions provided by BOM very happy with accuracy of predictions. As well when used to go fishing found nautical predictions highly accurate. Obviously could live without it but it makes life much easier to plan these days , so I have a lot of respect for scientist who predict the weather.

Not debating that there hasn't  been some misrepresentation about Global warming but also pretty confident in declaring that the climate skeptics have been much more dishonest.

But anyway as I have mentioned I see this as a issue about risk management. One one side we have the possibility that life as we know it will be detrimentally altered against the other possibility that we waste some money and retard some aspect of economy making the planet cleaner and more sustainable.


----------



## Atlas79 (30 January 2010)

MACCA350 said:


> The media and politicians alike seem to have gone quiet on the subject...........maybe they're hoping people will forget about the whole farce
> 
> ..........then again it could just be the holiday season, give them another week or so to get over their hangovers and they'll be back in full swing
> 
> cheers




One media figure has become vocal on the subject. I guess his suicide bombers don't use much carbon...?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901463.html


----------



## wayneL (30 January 2010)

Beyond a few vested interests and those zealots who have embraced it as a religion, co2 based AGW is a dead issue, the science largely discredited, the proponents caught out BSing and humiliated.

Let's now concentrate on minimizing man's impact on the environment in a number of other ways that are real, measurable and doable.

And yes, prosecute the Gorists and Gravy Trainers.

Unfortunately it will not happen, and they will resurrect the issue, Lazarus like, at some point in the future.


----------



## satanoperca (30 January 2010)

Isn't the question, has man contributed to global warming or is it just another natural cycle of the planet?

And if global warming is happening, how much has man contributed to it?

If it is a small percentage, do we really believe that man can change a natural cycle? 

If man has significantly contributed to global warming through emissions shouldn't we also be address the issue of increasing world populations?

KRUDD and the govnuts have totally lost me on this issue when they talk about doubling of the population in 25 years. This simply means that what each individual produces in emissions today will need to halved within 25 years to maintain the current level of Oz emissions.

While it would seem many scientists have evidence that global warming is occurring there are just as many that support the earth is cooling.

Cheers


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 January 2010)

RamonR said:


> I base many decision upon predictions provided by BOM very happy with accuracy of predictions. As well when used to go fishing found nautical predictions highly accurate. Obviously could live without it but it makes life much easier to plan these days , so I have a lot of respect for scientist who predict the weather.
> 
> Not debating that there hasn't  been some misrepresentation about Global warming but also pretty confident in declaring that the climate skeptics have been much more dishonest.
> 
> But anyway as I have mentioned I see this as a issue about risk management. One one side we have the possibility that life as we know it will be detrimentally altered against the other possibility that we waste some money and retard some aspect of economy making the planet cleaner and more sustainable.




And I watch BOM, carefully particularly atm when its pouring out of the heavens, and they agree with me.

But if BOM tell me that its going to be as dry as a theweisers, next January, during our rainy season, then I will ignore them. 

If you go on a fishing trip and the weather forecast is wrong, all you get is a fright, some choppy waves and don't get to feed the fish.

With this Global Warming horse****, billions of dollars will be spent unproductively, mostly on bureaucrats wages and antibiotics for their transmission diseases when they come home.



wayneL said:


> Beyond a few vested interests and those zealots who have embraced it as a religion, co2 based AGW is a dead issue, the science largely discredited, the proponents caught out BSing and humiliated.
> 
> Let's now concentrate on minimizing man's impact on the environment in a number of other ways that are real, measurable and doable.
> 
> ...




A good summary Wayne, it is a religion, has all the hallmarks, doom, gloom, penance, get to heaven if yer good.

And I agree totally with minimising the harm that we do to other species and the planet, but I see no evidence that convinces me the globe is warming.

Haven't any of these ****forbrains heard of homeostasis I think its called or feedback to keep the organisms going. Don't ask me to explain it. I read it in Readers Digest at the barbers on that rainy day when none of my slack bloody workers could see through their hangovers to even drive to work. The earth accommodates change.

gg


----------



## RamonR (30 January 2010)

I assume all those that propose nothing be done about this issue don't bother to insure their houses and other possessions.

After all there is not the slightest bit of credible evidence that you house is going to burn down in the next year. So if all that matters is hard evidence and risks are not taken into account then insurance is a huge waste of money.


----------



## wayneL (30 January 2010)

RamonR said:


> I assume all those that propose nothing be done about this issue don't bother to insure their houses and other possessions.
> 
> After all there is not the slightest bit of credible evidence that you house is going to burn down in the next year. So if all that matters is hard evidence and risks are not taken into account then insurance is a huge waste of money.




Oh that tired ol' argument.... :sleeping:

Let's take any/all arguments of impending doom and spend trillions on "insurance" ON EACH ONE!

Pulleeeeze!

By the way, Mars, with "not the slightest bit of credible evidence" might just invade Earth. What are we going to do about that?


----------



## boofhead (30 January 2010)

Even evergreen Tassy is copping a lot of dryness. A large part of the north west is dry which is unusual. Often there are enough showers to keep it mostly green. It has been trending that way for a while.

Rainfall records show in the south east of the Australia experienced a wet period during the 1950s. No surprise that is when the agricultural push was on.

Climate change has been happening for ages. If the evidence of it is correct then it helped take down the old kingdom in Egypt and others in the region. 200 years of dryness in Ethiopa reduced the water down the Nile. etc.

I guess GG is in about human induced change.

Shouldn't the issue be more about if we can influence the climate? If we can influence then wouldn't we want it more favourable for us?


----------



## RamonR (30 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> Oh that tired ol' argument.... :sleeping:
> 
> Let's take any/all arguments of impending doom and spend trillions on "insurance" ON EACH ONE!
> 
> ...




If it is a tired old argument then surely the answers to my question our already out there any you could easily quote them instead of calling it a tired old argument.

I assume from your answer you don't carry any insurance as you are arguing against insuring against risks.

I am not arguing for insuring against risks without any evidence. I am merely pointing out that the people saying do nothing are saying we need proof before taking any action. Whilst not holding the same standards when the risk involve only themselves.

I would say that there is overwhelming evidence that Mars in not going to invade the world.

So maybe we only take action on those risks that have been agreed by all the worlds leading academies of science.


----------



## beaul (30 January 2010)

From the scientists point of view it is ALL about funding (I used to work at CSIRO) they can "prove" anything if you give them enough money.
I have had some heated arguments with fellow scientists, they just do not want to see any other view than the one that makes them money.

I spend a lot of my time visiting farmers all over Australia and around the world. ( as an agricultural consultant) 
The farmers  livehood depends on the weather. Not one in thousands I have met have agreed with Global warming, they have seen it all before, that is, severe weather patterns etc.

I am also disgusted with our media for helping to sensationalise  "the big lie" for the sake of selling newspapers. 

The other aspect to this is how gullible "women" in particular are to this tripe.
I love going to dinner parties and expousing my "views", and I find it is always the women who want to take you apart for disagreeing with their new philosophy.
I am sorry we ever gave them the vote


----------



## RamonR (30 January 2010)

boofhead said:


> Shouldn't the issue be more about if we can influence the climate? If we can influence then wouldn't we want it more favourable for us?



I agree.
It doesn't matter in the slightest if Global warming is caused by man or not.
All that matters is if we can do something about it.

No one seems to be arguing that we can't do something about it merely that the costs of doing something about it are too prohibitive.


----------



## Trembling Hand (30 January 2010)

RamonR said:


> So maybe we only take action on those risks that have been agreed by all the worlds leading academies of science.




I never take the excess reduction insurance when hiring a car because I know it will cost me 100 times more in the long run. Although I know at some time I will probably have a car prang. :

Insurance doesn't always add up. Mostly its a fear thing.


----------



## RamonR (30 January 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> I never take the excess reduction insurance when hiring a car because I know it will cost me 100 times more in the long run. Although I know at some time I will probably have a car prang. :
> 
> Insurance doesn't always add up. Mostly its a fear thing.




Insurance when hiring a car probably not a good example because I assume it is mandatory. The question is do you have insurance on your house or insurance on yourself?


----------



## wayneL (30 January 2010)

RamonR said:


> I agree.
> It doesn't matter in the slightest if Global warming is caused by man or not.
> All that matters is if we can do something about it.
> 
> No one seems to be arguing that we can't do something about it merely that the costs of doing something about it are too prohibitive.




Hang on! What you are proposing here is none other than man-made climate change. You want to change the natural cycles of climate?

Oh brother, we have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

In any case you are missing my argument. The CO2 causes climate change hypothesis has been thoroughly trashed. However humans are responsible for climate change in other ways, such as land use changes.

Plus there are a number of other ways we damage the environment in an unsustainable way.

While the co2 gravy train continues, doable mitigation and moves to a more sustainable resource management is ignored.

In other words, focus on co2 means we keep moving towards less sustainability, not more. My consistent point is that we humans should forget about all the carbon BS (apart from energy security and preparing for a world with less oil) and focus on real stuff.

Unfortunately, nobody is going to get rich that way. The Gorists have done exceptionally well from the co2 MMCC ruse.


----------



## RamonR (30 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> Hang on! What you are proposing here is none other than man-made climate change. You want to change the natural cycles of climate?
> 
> Oh brother, we have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
> 
> In any case you are missing my argument. The CO2 causes climate change hypothesis has been thoroughly trashed. However humans are responsible for climate change in other ways, such as land use changes.




Apart from the fact that you seem to be simultaneously arguing that man changing the climate is ridiculous yet agree that man is changing the climate, we seem to agree.
I don't advocate any one mitigation action. Merely that we should be doing something.


----------



## sneak'n (30 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> In any case you are missing my argument. The CO2 causes climate change hypothesis has been thoroughly trashed. However humans are responsible for climate change in other ways, such as land use changes.



If you change the characteristics of a fluid, such as by adding salt to water, you change the capacity of that fluid to absorb energy.
Our atmosphere is a complex fluid that, through the addition of various greenhouse gases, has steadily absorbed more energy and expressed this globally through mean temperature rises.  There are no credible scientists that disagree with the concept of forcings.
Land use changes have both macro and micro climate impacts, with the overall balance falling the way of reducing nature's capacity to absorb greenhouse gases, notably through massive destruction of forests.
There are various camps of scientists that actively market climate pseudo science in a supposedly credible guise.  What they remain unable to demonstrate is that the earth is is cooling in sustainable terms.
Mr L's argument reminds me of Tony Blair justifying his nation's war footing with the US against Iraq.  Not because there was legitimate reason (through any legal definition one chooses) to go to war, but because Saddam was not a nice man.


----------



## wayneL (30 January 2010)

RamonR said:


> Apart from the fact that you seem to be simultaneously arguing that man changing the climate is ridiculous yet agree that man is changing the climate, we seem to agree.
> I don't advocate any one mitigation action. Merely that we should be doing something.




No.

The Goreists are running with the hypothesis that we will be crowded on mountain tops surrounded by boiling oceans because of co2. (That's hyberbole BTW)

The science indicates no such thing, it's bunkum. However, climate change is a fact of life and humans can influence climate on a regional scale. Chop down a few forests and voila, there will be different dynamics acting on the local climate.

As Pielke Snr says - There can be climate change without warming or cooling.

What is clear is that the IPCC model(s) is(are) bunkum.


----------



## wayneL (30 January 2010)

sneak'n said:


> If you change the characteristics of a fluid, such as by adding salt to water, you change the capacity of that fluid to absorb energy.
> Our atmosphere is a complex fluid that, through the addition of various greenhouse gases, has steadily absorbed more energy and expressed this globally through mean temperature rises.  There are no credible scientists that disagree with the concept of forcings.
> Land use changes have both macro and micro climate impacts, with the overall balance falling the way of reducing nature's capacity to absorb greenhouse gases, notably through massive destruction of forests.
> There are various camps of scientists that actively market climate pseudo science in a supposedly credible guise.  What they remain unable to demonstrate is that the earth is is cooling in sustainable terms.
> Mr L's argument reminds me of Tony Blair justifying his nation's war footing with the US against Iraq.  Not because there was legitimate reason (through any legal definition one chooses) to go to war, but because Saddam was not a nice man.




Oh please.

Why do the warmists always resort to inappropriate analogy, non-sequitur and a whole host of such logical fallacies?

Another zealot refusing to behold science in entirety and content in his little world of confirmation bias.

pffft


----------



## Julia (30 January 2010)

satanoperca said:


> Isn't the question, has man contributed to global warming or is it just another natural cycle of the planet?
> 
> And if global warming is happening, how much has man contributed to it?
> 
> ...



Good post.  The only factor you have omitted is that there is no proof that any change in climate is anthropogenic in nature.

The following extract is from today's "Weekend Australian""


> The British university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen emails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.
> The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man made emissions were causing global warming.
> Britain's Information Commissioner's Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late.
> 
> The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.




And there is much more about the deceptive practices of the UEA scientists.





RamonR said:


> If it is a tired old argument then surely the answers to my question our already out there any you could easily quote them instead of calling it a tired old argument.
> 
> I assume from your answer you don't carry any insurance as you are arguing against insuring against risks.
> 
> ...




To use your own argument, you will therefore need to produce this 'overwhelming evidence' that Mars is not going to invade the world.

You cannot know this, or demonstrate it, any more than any scientist has been able to demonstrate conclusively that any climate change is induced by human behaviour.

And your suggestion that we 'do something' just in case is specious in the extreme.  Do what?   With what guaranteed outcome?  If you can explain this, then we might start considering your argument.


----------



## SmellyTerror (31 January 2010)

> The CO2 causes climate change hypothesis has been thoroughly trashed.




You guys keep saying that, but you're not linking to anything, or explaining anything. Why do you think this is so? It is not true, but I can't really begin to explain why it is not true if you won't say why you think it is.

"Is so!"

"Is not!"

"Is so!"

"Is not!"

....is the the level of discussion that works for you?

Oh! It might just be natural climate change! Of COURSE! If only all those sceintists who have spent decades studyig this had thought of that! We'd better send them an email. They'll all slap their heads and breath a sigh of relief. What a bunch of idiots, not even considering something that any school kid with a dinosaur obsession could have told them.

Let's see.
CO2 known to be a greenhouse gas for over 100 years.
Human activity produces a massive amount of CO2.
CO2 increasing in atmoshpere.
Temperature is going up.
CO2 levels are preceding temeprature rise, instead of lagging it by a couple of hundred years as it has every time in the past.

As I said: the vast majority of the people who actually study this stuff, who are qualified to give an expert opinion, say AGW is happening. For you forum readers at home to say they're wrong, you must have something SPECTACULAR.

So what is it?


----------



## RamonR (31 January 2010)

Julia said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I take the fact that no life has been shown to exist on Mars as overwhelming evidence that Mars is not going to invade.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Do What? I am not sure what the best mitigation factors are. I am just sure that I am unwilling to take the risks and want action taken.
Very few things in life come with a guaranteed outcome.
There was no guarantee that not pumping out ozone depleting gases would have repaired the hole in the ozone layer we humans created. But at costs we did it anyway and we are no longer so vulnerable to solar radiation.

If we could stop the arguments about the need to do something, we could begin the one we need about what we need to do. But that is exactly what the climate change skeptics want, to never have this argument because they will be long dead before most of the adverse effects become obvious.

The ozone hole is one way in which human activity has changed natural cycles.


----------



## Sidamo (31 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> The CO2 causes climate change hypothesis has been thoroughly trashed.




According to who?

I find it odd that many here, who, if they were offering advice on this forum, would place DYOR right at the top of the list, are happy to accept sensationalist journalism as prima facie evidence that a whole branch of science is either wrong, or a global conspiracy. wayneL, do you have any *evidence* that the above hypothesis has been trashed - by actual climate scientists, not some journos or people publishing from think-tanks?

Regarding the East Anglia fiasco: they didn't release the data because much of it was not theirs and they were not legally permitted to release it under the terms of the data sharing agreements. Nothing sinister there.

As for the "trick" that everyone assumed meant a 'sleight-of-hand designed to produce a particular result', what it actually refers to is a computational shortcut, a way of simplifying the maths involved without compromising the result, and the "trick" was fully documented and explained in the actual paper which was published.

Sure, there are mistakes in the IPCC reports (hardly surprising given the amount of data examined), notably the inclusion of the Himalaya claim without confirming its source, but out of the claims that have been made so far, there's nothing that invalidates the underlying argument.

As is usual, don't believe all the **** you read in the newspapers. DYOR.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 January 2010)

Sid,

My problem with Global Warming is dyor as well.

I can see no evidence of Global Warming.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone can predict the weather 1 year ahead, let alone 50 years.

I find that most of the advocates are left wing and in the last 100 years of argument on economics and social capital they have been proven wrong.

I am appalled by the sloppy science applied by the advocates.

I dislike the demonisation of anyone who opposes their view, which has all the thin veneer of religious belief and propagation.

I mistrust their computer modelling.

I do believe the University of East Anglia have behaved criminally in this matter and only escaped prosecution due to a loophole in the law.

And lastly it has been pissing rain in Townsville for the past 10 days, as it often does in January, high winds and Olga is heading towards you southerners. So look out the window and not at some computer model or the opinions of some ****forbrains like Al Gore for proof of anything about the weather forecast.

gg

gg


----------



## RamonR (31 January 2010)

Top 11 warmest years on record have been in last 13 years

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

Thats seems like evidence to me.
That was the result of about 5 secs of searching.


----------



## sneak'n (31 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> Oh please.
> 
> Why do the warmists always resort to inappropriate analogy, non-sequitur and a whole host of such logical fallacies?
> 
> ...




I took a little time to read from several related threads elsewhere on this forum and noticed you are not one that is particularly good at debating.
What I found most interesting is your quick replies that actually play the man, yet that is your very contention against the original poster.
It is a tactic that does not wash with me.
To begin, I am not a warmist, nor a zealot.
So if you are interested in the actual science I welcome something more meaningful.


----------



## SmellyTerror (31 January 2010)

> I find it difficult to believe that anyone can predict the weather 1 year ahead, let alone 50 years.




Sir, I can tell you that January 2015 in southern Australia will be hotter that July 2015. I am willing to take a bet. Predicting day-to-day weather is not the point. This is climate.

Based on the science of climate change they predicted that the world would warm. *It has warmed *. That's a pretty bloody spectacular evidence of the effectiveness of the science, isn't it?



> And lastly it has been pissing rain in Townsville for the past 10 days, as it often does in January, high winds and Olga is heading towards you southerners. So look out the window and not at some computer model or the opinions of some ****forbrains like Al Gore for proof of anything about the weather forecast.




Global climate is *GLOBAL*. See? It's right there in the name. It doesn't matter what's happening out your window, unless it's one hell of a big window.

And the reason they tried to shift the terminology over to "climate change" rather than "global warming" is to address just that kind of misinterpretation. Some places will get colder. Some places will get wetter. Extreme weather of all kinds (including cold events) will increase in frequency and intensity. This has been part of predictions for *decades *now.

Your "looking out the window" advice just shows your ignorance of the very science you dismiss. You mistrust the climate modelling even though you clearly have no idea what it is modelling.



> I do believe the University of East Anglia have behaved criminally in this matter and only escaped prosecution due to a loophole in the law.




And you're right. Totally agree.

...but, since I'm not sure exactly what flavour of misinterpretation you're following to think this had any bearing on the science of climate change, would you be willing to explain why you think it did?

They were guilty of fending off FOI requests. They get a ton of FOI requests from idiots who don't understand the science. They don't like it, because they've got better things to do with their time than answer FOI requests from people well known to be serial pests. Most are answered anyway, but you can see how they'd get cranky after a while.

eg from the leaked emails:



> From: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Re: request for your emails
> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:36:26 -0600
> ...




So eventually someone said: screw this guy - just delete his emails. Which is gross misconduct, and yeah, illegal. But hardly earth-shattering evidence of a conspiricy, and has NO BEARING on the science.

And I'll just note the seriousness of this blokes request for information by pointing out that he didn't issue a complaint when his emails were just being deleted and ignored. Not a peep until more than a year later when the emails were leaked that showed they were ignoring him.

Suggests something about how much he was actually interested in the data, doesn't it?


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2010)

sneak'n said:


> I took a little time to read from several related threads elsewhere on this forum and noticed you are not one that is particularly good at debating.
> What I found most interesting is your quick replies that actually play the man, yet that is your very contention against the original poster.
> It is a tactic that does not wash with me.



Yet you are happy to use the tactic by criticizing my debating prowess and technique.

BTW I must point out, in general and specific terms, the absolutely monumental hypocrisy in your contention. Ad hominem is the prime tactic of the warmists against skeptics and you have immediately reverted to type, despite dissing the tactic... hmmmmm. 

Indeed I sometimes play the man. This is necessary when "the ball" is so far out of play that it becomes irrelevant. After cheating and making up the rules as they go along for so long, the co2 warmists are still losing the game. Truth outs in the end.

I played the man in this instance because your points were... ridiculous. Simplistic and not reflective of the big picture, not one iota. The ball was nowhere to be seen, out of bounds somewhere in the press galley.

Again BTW. I have no contention against the original poster. GG and I are in broad agreement on this issue. A serious mistake in comprehension on your part.



> To begin, I am not a warmist, nor a zealot.
> So if you are interested in the actual science I welcome something more meaningful.




By you actions ye shall be judged.

If you would be so kind to run right over the the sidelines, find "the ball" (wherever it is) and bring it back into play, I'd be happy to play ball.

Your choice.


----------



## SmellyTerror (31 January 2010)

> Yet you are happy to use the tactic by criticizing my debating prowess and technique ... Ad hominem is the prime tactic of the warmists against skeptics and you have immediately reverted to type, despite dissing the tactic




Saying you're bad at debating is not ad hominem unless he's drawing unfounded conclusions from it. It's irrelevant, but not ad hom.

...but since you've consistently failed to give any reasoning at all for your assertions, I'm not sure how any argument can be framed against you at all. If you say a field of science is bunk, but give no reason for thinking so, we can only point to the entire body of that science and say: behold.

Not very productive, which might be why he's dissing your debating skills.


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Saying you're bad at debating is not ad hominem unless he's drawing unfounded conclusions from it. It's irrelevant, but not ad hom.
> 
> ...but since you've consistently failed to give any reasoning at all for your assertions, I'm not sure how any argument can be framed against you at all. If you say a field of science is bunk, but give no reason for thinking so, we can only point to the entire body of that science and say: behold.
> 
> Not very productive, which might be why he's dissing your debating skills.




Nonsense. 

I've posted so much on this board. But what you guys have to do is click on the links and actually read it. Ignoring it all and then saying I haven't justified my assertions is just a tad disingenuous, don't you think?

As I said to the other guy, bring the ball back into play, and we'll play ball. Right now you're still playing the man as well. 

I'm ready for any game you want to play.


----------



## SmellyTerror (31 January 2010)

Well this is a new thread, so I figured people should at least mention what they think is wrong with climate science. I could go digging through other threads to post what I think you think, or you could just say it.

anyway, re: ad hominem

This is a logical fallacy. It means that you apply perceived characteristics of the person to their argument.

Ad hominem: you are an idiot, therefore your argument is wrong.

NOT ad hominem (however rude): your argument is wrong, therefore you are an idiot.

The first is a logical fallacy, since properties of the speaker have no bearing on the correctness of the argument. An idiot can be right. The second is not fallacious, depending on your definition of "idiot" and assuming you've come to the conclusion of "wrong" in a sound manner.

So saying "you have failed to present any real argument, therefore you are bad at debating" might be overgeneralising, but it is not ad hom. If he'd said "you are bad at debating therefore you are wrong", that WOULD have been.

...and if you're accusing me of ad hom now, I can't even tell how. I've pointed out that you've presented nothing to support your arguments in this thread. This is a statement of fact (unless you'd care to refute it?).  A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy, can it?

Now you want me to go research *your* arguments and bring them to this discussion? Would it be easier for you to tell us what you think than for me to tell you what I think you think?


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2010)

Well there are some strange twists of logic there. :sleeping: whatever.

But if you're not playing the ball, you're playing the man. Isn't that logical?

My position is well known here and it is actually off topic. More than willing to discuss in other threads where my position is on record.

The topic is:



			
				Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> It would appear that the global warming debate has been a combination of ignorance, misguided science, greedy opportunists and gullibility in equal measure, by those who argue in its favour.
> 
> It is becoming increasingly apparent that it is a load of codswallop.
> 
> ...




My opinion is yes they should be prosecuted. They have perpetuated a massive fraud and enriched themselves at the expense of a trusting public.

Now if you guys would like to talk science, I'll see you on another thread.


----------



## pacestick (31 January 2010)

you have to be very carefull in prosecuting someone for being wrong in a democracy. However if you can prove that they used the misinformation on purpose  for personal gain that is probably fraud particularly if they knew it was wrong info


----------



## RamonR (31 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> My opinion is yes they should be prosecuted. They have perpetuated a massive fraud and enriched themselves at the expense of a trusting public.
> 
> Now if you guys would like to talk science, I'll see you on another thread.




In what way have they perpetrated a massive fraud.
One department in East Anglia has been accused of dishonest practice but this has been address also one study was based on faulty data.
But what about all the rest of the scientist in the world.
This thread is about how they are wrong so perfectly on thread to show us the proof that they are all fraudsters


----------



## SmellyTerror (31 January 2010)

*Uh, you don't think that the issue of guilt is relevant when calling for prosecution?*

Me: "We should prosecute the Prime Minister for murder!"

You: "WTF?"

Me: "Discussing the reason is off topic! This thread is purely for agreeing and sharpening the pitchfoks".



You also think that giving you the actual definition of ad hominem, a logical fallacy, is an _interesting twist of logic_? WTF do *you* think it means?

I'm reading back through the other thread, but so far your posts are comments about other posts. Be nice to get an idea what it is you actually think, instead of needing to answer everyone else's stuff. And saying "look, somone else doesn't believe it either!" isn't actually an argument.




> Don't for a minute think they are defeated. They are just reworking the propaganda. Expect an onslaught of BS at any moment.
> 
> --
> The Fabians are on a roll and they won't toss in the white towel so easily.
> ...




Ok, I'll skip back to the start of the thread...



> I hear that Al Bore has become the first person to become a billionaire from climate change alarmism.
> 
> Draw your own conclusions.
> 
> ...




Nice arguments.

Oh, hurrah!



> If only bodies like the IPCC would be honest enough to put it across like this (and the other side for that matter), people would probably be more willing to embrace caution on co2 emissions.
> 
> If only bodies like the IPCC would be more holistic on a range of issues, more environmental problems would be addressed.
> 
> ...




Oh wait, not a single word on how the science is actually wrong.

Ok, here we go:



> So you look at a small regional area as proof of accuracy of prediction? That is serious cherry picking there. That is not science, that is cognitive bias.
> 
> There are various areas that are much colder and wetter than predicted and by that standard could be used to "prove" (LOL) that the next ice age is on its way.
> 
> It still says nothing about co2 - nothing!




Ok, that's nice (even though other responses from you do discuss the weather at a small scale, but whatever). 

The issue of colder and wetter IS one that I spoke about above. So is that the ball? Are you playing?

Really, is it too much to ask you to simply sum up what you think? You've made a statement (that Climate Science has been debunked) but you think it's off topic to ask you to justify that?

C'mon.


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2010)

RamonR said:


> In what way have they perpetrated a massive fraud.
> One department in East Anglia has been accused of dishonest practice but this has been address also one study was based on faulty data.
> But what about all the rest of the scientist in the world.
> This thread is about how they are wrong so perfectly on thread to show us the proof that they are all fraudsters




Ramon, there is stuff coming out thick and fast now.

One example here (of many)from the very heart of IPCC http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2010)

Smelly,

Cherry-picking is another skill you people have developed.

People prepared to consider my posts in their entirety will make their judgements one way or the other. However I must point out that one must discern between hyperbole, black humour, retorts and actual statements of position.

Context is everything.

I must also point out that you're still not playing the ball. 

Meanwhile, the fact remains that co2 based AGW science has not been conducted honestly or fairly. The proponents have enriched themselves at the expense of the public.

That's fraud and should be prosecuted.


----------



## IFocus (31 January 2010)

I don't understand the CC debate over all so have stayed out of it. The range of parties (affected, with money ) and incomplete science, populist politicians  always meant it would get messy.........unfortunately.

To be honest I didn't care less if the science was even remotely correct as its relatively unimportant.

What is important is that it could be / could have been a vehicle for change. 


The world population has increased from a estimated 1 billion 1800 to 2.5 billion 1950 and accelerating to 9.5 billion 2010 give or take a few %. 

I would have thought this would an affect on some thing?

The increase in consumption pumping more stuff into the environment I would have thought would affect some thing?

Unfortunately the arguments discussed I see here misses the big picture. Either way whether its CC or simply the competition for resources change is coming.

If there is not a vehicle for change of direction soon such as taxes etc then the old proven method will come soon enough..................war

Generally change only comes through trauma so I guess its war.

In the mean time like the rest of the world keep arguing the detail guys and prosecute.


----------



## RamonR (31 January 2010)

So if I can find proof that a climate change skeptic has used faulty or dishonest figures does that mean I have debunked the whole climate is not changing argument


----------



## SmellyTerror (31 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> Ramon, there is stuff coming out thick and fast now.
> 
> One example here (of many)from the very heart of IPCC http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece





Hey, that's a good one! One bit of dramatic fluff was wrong - and it's wrong even though global warming is correct. Even with projected warming, the glacier thing was wrong.

Even WITH projected warming.

So it's not really relevant, from a scientific point of view, to most of the planet.

Fraud? Let's see:



> The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit




How was he informed?



> a prominent science *journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error *last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”




The gist of what the journo was saying?



> Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.




So a journalist is asking the head of the IPCC about something he says a single scientist had told him. He does this while the IPCC is getting ready for Copenhagen. The IPCC doesn't deal with it quick enough.

And then we find out that this bloke was right, and the IPCC was wrong. We find that out due to the efforts of the scientists who you are ready to dismiss when they're saying things you DON'T like. Note that the science you are using to point and laugh at - these glaciers are not melting as fast as we thought - is coming from the SAME PEOPLE who are saying that CO2-related global warming is happening.

The theory then (?) is that they were hiding something they knew was true and that they KNEW THE MEDIA HAD, as an exercise in propaganda. Because of course it wouldn't be of any media interest for the IPCC to apparently "lie", and certainly wouldn't make them look like ****. If it's a conpsiracy it certainly isn't a smart one.

An overworked suit screwed up about a single region. Who was it who said this?



> So you look at a small regional area as proof of accuracy of prediction? That is serious cherry picking there




PS: 







> Cherry-picking is another skill you people have developed




Mate,I am not intending to suggest this is the entirety of your argument. What I'm trying to point out is *how hard it is to see what you actually mean if you won't just say it*. do you actually want people to understand what you're saying, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2010)

pacestick said:


> you have to be very carefull in prosecuting someone for being wrong in a democracy. However if you can prove that they used the misinformation on purpose  for personal gain that is probably fraud particularly if they knew it was wrong info




Indeed.

There is good research, there is research that though subject to bias is not fraudulent, then there is fradulent research. This should be caught via the peer review process, but this is where the more serious fraud begins.

The worst fraud is the use of research that is not peer reviewed and research known to be wrong and using that research as the basis of policy and/or for some other agenda.

The latter category is the easiest to prove and there is a lot of evidence coming out now.


----------



## RamonR (31 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> . However humans are responsible for climate change in other ways, such as land use changes.
> 
> Plus there are a number of other ways we damage the environment in an unsustainable way.
> 
> While the co2 gravy train continues, doable mitigation and moves to a more sustainable resource management is ignored.



I guess I will leave it at this.
We both seem to agree that climate change is real and something needs to be done about it.


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> PS:
> 
> Mate,I am not intending to suggest this is the entirety of your argument. What I'm trying to point out is *how hard it is to see what you actually mean if you won't just say it*. do you actually want people to understand what you're saying, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?




Fine.


Climate Change is real
Global Climate changes are the result of natural factors
Climate change does have some human involvement as well, but mostly on regional scales
There has been global warming, but it is not clear whether this has been natural, man made, or a combination of both.
The actual warming has been overstated by a number of invalid techniques.
Co2 may have had some influence in the warming, but its effect minor and grossly overstated
Sea level rise has been overstated and on a natural trend that has been relatively constant since the end of the little ice age
Ocean acidification is a furphy
Land use changes have a significant effect regionally.
Non co2 air pollution has significant effect regionally.
There are hundreds of environmental concerns not relating to climate which are more threatening to humanity.
These concerns are ignored while the co2 AGW fraud is perpetuated and dominates discussion and policy
We should reduce carbon fuel use, but for reasons of particle pollution and energy security, but should guard against jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.

There is more, but that's most of it off the top of my head, and I reserve the right to change my views as information come to hand.


----------



## Sean K (31 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> Fine.
> 
> 
> Climate Change is real
> ...



Off the top of your head. LOL  I don't think you have thought about this subject at all Wayne!


----------



## SmellyTerror (31 January 2010)

Thanks.

So these...



> Land use changes have a significant effect regionally.
> Non co2 air pollution has significant effect regionally.
> There are hundreds of environmental concerns not relating to climate which are more threatening to humanity.
> These concerns are ignored while the co2 AGW fraud is perpetuated and dominates discussion and policy
> We should reduce carbon fuel use, but for reasons of particle pollution and energy security, but should guard against jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.




...have little relevance to the science of AGW. Let me know if you want me to expand on that, or if you want to say why it is relevant.



> Global Climate changes are the result of natural factors
> Climate change does have some human involvement as well, but mostly on regional scales
> There has been global warming, but it is not clear whether this has been natural, man made, or a combination of both.




Note that these kinda contradict each other. Two statements of fact, then a statement of uncertainty on the thing you just stated as a fact. Is is unclear, or is it mostly regional, or is it natural? How do you know?

Absolutely no-one denies that climate changes over time. No-one.

The question of whether the present changes are natural is what we're talking about, and the overwhelming weight of scientific study shows it is man made. I'd have though it's a pretty big step to just say "oh well, the experts wrong". What on earth makes you think they're wrong? You'd need something absolutely spectacular, surely?

Which is most of what I'm asking. Why do people think the experts are wrong? What is it that's convinced them? These guys know a lot more about this stuff than we do.

I can stick a bunch of graphs here that show temperatures going up. It's not in dispute. We can show CO2 increase preceding temperature increase, opposite to the way it's been in the past. We can show humans producing a huge amount of CO2. We can show the theory behind the ability of CO2 to trap heat.

So what's wrong with it? Why do you think all of that is wrong?



> The actual warming has been overstated by a number of invalid techniques.
> Co2 may have had some influence in the warming, but its effect minor and grossly overstated




Well there have been models for how temperature would rise over the last decade based on the CO2 AGW theory. And they rose within those expectations. So what on earth makes you think it's wrong? So far the theory has been surprisingly accurate.

What temperature measures are you using to say the generally accepted ones are wrong?



> Sea level rise has been overstated and on a natural trend that has been relatively constant since the end of the little ice age




It's not a natural trend: 







http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html



> Ocean acidification is a furphy




I don't really know what that means. Acidifaction is happening.  It's measurable. Are you denying the likely effect?

-----------
PS: Sorry to post and bail, but I'm out of time for a few days. Knew I shouldn't have gotten into this. :

I think my post at 47 could use a response, because it's indicative of how a lot of the sceptcism comes out, IMO. A fairly minor issue blown out of proportion, similar to "climategate". It's repeated and quoted by many and never really digested: nothing, when you dig into these, say a thing about the underlying science. How the media and politicians and the suits represent this stuff has NO bearing on the science. People keep getting distracted by the politics.

It's happening. The science can't be much clearer.


----------



## Trembling Hand (31 January 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> The question of whether the present changes are natural is what we're talking about, and the overwhelming weight of scientific study shows it is man made.



 In models. Please shows some that are actual measurements. models are hypothesis not fact.



SmellyTerror said:


> I can stick a bunch of graphs here that show temperatures going up. It's not in dispute.



 Please do.


----------



## white_goodman (31 January 2010)

Skeeter you need to help yourself to a goddman science book cos your talkin like an effin retard!

in this case Skeeter refers to anyone who believes in global warming


----------



## SmellyTerror (31 January 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> In models. Please shows some that are actual measurements. models are hypothesis not fact.
> 
> Please do.




A bit hurried, poor sources, but temperature:





--





CO2:





--





...and given that the models said rising CO2 would give rising temperatures, and we've had rising CO2 and rising temperatures since then, suggests to me that the models might be more than random hand waving.


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> It's happening. The science can't be much clearer.




Only if you cherry-pick the science. The evidence of this can't be much clearer.


----------



## sneak'n (31 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> Yet you are happy to use the tactic by criticizing my debating prowess and technique.



I made an observation based on my research into other threads.




> BTW I must point out, in general and specific terms, the absolutely monumental hypocrisy in your contention. Ad hominem is the prime tactic of the warmists against skeptics and you have immediately reverted to type, despite dissing the tactic... hmmmmm.



As I am not a warmist, and my post made this clear, your point serves only to destroy the very foundation of your logic.



> Indeed I sometimes play the man. This is necessary when "the ball" is so far out of play that it becomes irrelevant. After cheating and making up the rules as they go along for so long, the co2 warmists are still losing the game. Truth outs in the end.



The climate science community is increasingly discovering and publishing materials that suggest our planet is warming at a rate that may not be in keeping with nature's deduced climate patterns.



> I played the man in this instance because your points were... ridiculous. Simplistic and not reflective of the big picture, not one iota. The ball was nowhere to be seen, out of bounds somewhere in the press galley.



You may wish to demonstrate how man plus nature, in adding greenhouses gases to our planet, is immune from the scientific principles relating to forcings.  My analogy gave a perspective from fluid thermodynamics that most people can understand.  Our atmosphere is more complex than salty water, but the principle of energy absorption is similar.



> Again BTW. I have no contention against the original poster. GG and I are in broad agreement on this issue. A serious mistake in comprehension on your part.



Your mistake actually as the context of my point was how you replied to originating posters - as I observed from reading other threads - rather than (in this instance) the thread starter. 




> By you actions ye shall be judged.
> 
> If you would be so kind to run right over the the sidelines, find "the ball" (wherever it is) and bring it back into play, I'd be happy to play ball.
> 
> Your choice.



I notice there are many posts already that demonstrate the planet is warming.  I would be grateful for your explanation that it is not, and that greenhouse gases should not be used by scientists to explain why there are dangers ahead if the composition continues on trend.


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2010)

sneak'n said:


> I notice there are many posts already that demonstrate the planet is warming.  I would be grateful for your explanation that it is not, and that greenhouse gases should not be used by scientists to explain why there are dangers ahead if the composition continues on trend.




Your other points are not worthy of discussion. However i need to pull you up on this blatant misrepresentation. 

Would you please review my points above and report back on where I claim there has been no warming.

Would you also please demonstrate which trend we are discussing, because the IPCC's version of "the trend" a/ has been demonstrated to be inaccurate b/ subject to arbitrary "adjustments" c/ modelled projection based on "the trend" have utterly failed.

This is not to say that there hasn't been a trend. If you care to actually read and comprehend, you will see that I state there has been warming.


----------



## sneak'n (31 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> Your other points are not worthy of discussion. However i need to pull you up on this blatant misrepresentation.
> 
> Would you please review my points above and report back on where I claim there has been no warming.
> 
> ...



My sense is contexted with your assertion that man's contribution to warming is, apparently in your vernacular, bullsh!t.  There are many well researched scientific papers that give perspective to man's direct contribution of greenhouse gases, over and above nature, that also show these trends to be increasing.  Some may want to argue the toss on precise quantum, but there is no disagreement on direction.
Given that the scientific foundation of warming (as you put it) is significantly predicated on the principles of forcings, I am curious as to why you do not consider this worthy of discussion.


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2010)

sneak'n said:


> My sense is contexted with your assertion that man's contribution to warming is, apparently in your vernacular, bullsh!t.



[Sigh] This is so tiresome, incorrect. Can I repeat my request that you read and comprehend my posts.


> There are many well researched scientific papers that give perspective to man's direct contribution of greenhouse gases, over and above nature, that also show these trends to be increasing.



This has been discussed ad nauseaum in other threads and the problems in said science well documented. 



> Some may want to argue the toss on precise quantum, but there is no disagreement on direction.



There is disagreement on much more than you admit to.



> Given that the scientific foundation of warming (as you put it) is significantly predicated on the principles of forcings, I am curious as to why you do not consider this worthy of discussion.



They are worthy of discussion, but only with those with a minimum of cognitive bias, otherwise it is not a discussion.

You have displayed your cognitive biases mightily, so I have concluded discussion (with you) is futile. It's not a personal attack, just answering your question.


----------



## sneak'n (31 January 2010)

wayneL said:


> [You have displayed your cognitive biases mightily, so I have concluded discussion (with you) is futile. It's not a personal attack, just answering your question.



No capacity to discuss the science is symptomatic of the majority of your posts.
As I quickly noted, you readily dismiss a view that does not agree with yours, and without foundation find a justification for not indulging in further discussion.
I put it to you that the principles of forcings a pivotal to the science that abounds climate change discussion.
Your response is to conclude discussion.
It is little wonder that a large number of lay people so readily accept the pseudo science of an increasing number of non-climate scientists acting at the behest of conservative politics and the carbon energy sector.


----------



## Atlas79 (31 January 2010)

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." [Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in "A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind", by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5.]


----------



## Happy (31 January 2010)

If we (Australia) account for 2% of global warming and we reduce our contribution by 50% and nothing else changes (as China, India and few other countries have dispensation, as they are developing countries) total pollution will drop from 100% to 99% of current level.


Hardly worth us committing billions of dollars plus damaging our industry.


The most stupid thing is Australia stepping in front of the orchestra !

Of course even if global warming is real.


----------



## wayneL (31 January 2010)

sneak'n said:


> No capacity to discuss the science is symptomatic of the majority of your posts.
> As I quickly noted, you readily dismiss a view that does not agree with yours, and without foundation find a justification for not indulging in further discussion.
> I put it to you that the principles of forcings a pivotal to the science that abounds climate change discussion.
> Your response is to conclude discussion.
> It is little wonder that a large number of lay people so readily accept the pseudo science of an increasing number of non-climate scientists acting at the behest of conservative politics and the carbon energy sector.



:sleeping: More ad hominem... plus the good old oil lobby/conservative conspiracy theory.

Sneaky, your argument technique is disingenuous. You accuse me of being unable to discuss science, yet you offer none yourself apart from broad assertions drawn from IPCC propaganda and Gore movies. Then make outrageous misrepresentations of my views... nay, downright lies.

If it wasn't so boring it would be laughable. 

I'm quite prepared for any discussion, if you'd care to raise your game to one of integrity and credibility. Thus far, you have shown the precise opposite.

The ball is your court. Show us why IPCC members who have misled the public and policy makers and enriched themselves at our expense should not be prosecuted.


----------



## GumbyLearner (31 January 2010)

"Global Warming" and/or "Climate Change" is code for a deontological ethical premise that all must pay regardless of their financial means to adapt to the environment. These words are pushed by the media in order to make a collective responsibility argument that all must pay for the environment. 
I have already explained the Fallacy of Decomposition that this kind of linguistic manipulation creates. And I'm not buying it, no matter how it's dressed up to sound!   There is no collective *we* in this, there is* I* the individual am responsible for what *I* do!

The words "Industrial Pollution" or "Environmental Pollution" have been erased from the record and are nowhere to been seen in this debate. Because this would involve taxing production at the source of the problem and that would affect profits and slow down industry. But if they use vague terms like Climate Change and Global Warming then *everyone* is compelled to pay extra taxes which is what the big polluters and derivative desk players like Turntable and his buddies want.

I'm totally down with what WayneL has to say about irresponsible land use and also what Smurf has already stated about the smokescreen of shifting the tax source of carbon emissions in order for it to become an instrument of profit.

This whole issue is bollocks because it has been hijacked by the marketing wordsmiths of big governments and business. It isn't going to help the enviroment*.
*
END RANT!    Ahh.. That feels better.


----------



## Vizion (31 January 2010)

Climate Change is real - Agreed
Global Climate changes are the result of natural factors. Lets leave that one for a moment.
Climate change does have some human involvement as well, but mostly on regional scales. Regional climate & global climate is decoupled is it? One has no bearing on the other? 
There has been global warming, but it is not clear whether this has been natural, man made, or a combination of both. You state above that global climate change is the result of natural factors. Which is it? Its not or it's unclear? If it's unclear, then the rest of your arguments below are only an opinion, as they can't be proven according to your own statement "unclear" actual reasons for warming. I suggest you stop making absolute statements as again by your own admission you cannot prove you are right.
The actual warming has been overstated by a number of invalid techniques. - The actual warming is well documented.
Co2 may have had some influence in the warming, but its effect minor and grossly overstated - ..... 
Sea level rise has been overstated and on a natural trend that has been relatively constant since the end of the little ice age - Natural? Caused by? Do tell..  Lay a little science on us all. 
Ocean acidification is a furphy - Its a rumour? pre-industrial values of 280 parts per million (ppm) to 383ppm today, This is verifiable, therefore not a rumour.
Land use changes have a significant effect regionally. - Not disputed. However, unless you are stating you think regional climate & global climate are decoupled, this statement has zero relevance to a discussion on global climate change. If you are stating they are not, then global climate change is clearly affected by man. Influenced regardless of Co2. Please see above in regard to your "natural causes" statement Which is it? 
Non co2 air pollution has significant effect regionally. - 
See above, your use of language is quite good, but neither it nor your logic is that good rhat you can just throw in completely irrelevant sentences as filler to obfuscate the discussion without it being noticed.
There are hundreds of environmental concerns not relating to climate which are more threatening to humanity. - More threatening to humanity than changing the whole globes climate? I would point out that this problem is bigger than humanity. Humanity is not the only thing on this planet. Nor are we the most important to the majority of species as a requirement to continued life. Remove us the planet would get along just fine. You cannot decouple the rest of the ecosystem from this problem.
These concerns are ignored while the co2 AGW fraud is perpetuated and dominates discussion and policy - This is a total nonsense. Local issues are still on everyone's agenda. The war In Afghanistan is still going. Hospitals still need money, water for the Murray is till in everyone who cares minds. 
None of these things has gone away or are they being ignored.
We should reduce carbon fuel use, but for reasons of particle pollution and energy security, but should guard against jumping from the frying pan and into the fire. Doh! as Co2 in these quantities IS & has been defined as particle pollution. You yourself are saying that this should be reduced... this is good, a step forward at last. The last part of your sentence is empty semantics.




> More ad hominem... plus the good old oil lobby/conservative conspiracy theory.
> 
> Sneaky, your argument technique is disingenuous. You accuse me of being unable to discuss science, yet you offer none yourself apart from broad assertions drawn from IPCC propaganda and Gore movies. Then make outrageous misrepresentations of my views... nay, downright lies.
> 
> ...



Still unable to post links to hard science to back up your argument I see.


----------



## pilots (31 January 2010)

Vizion, last year we was traveling around the USA, we came across this town that had Indian towns built in to the Cliff face, this kept them warm in Winter, and made it hard to be attacked from any enemies, now I asked the guide we had why the Indians moved out, he said that around BC they had a for over one thousand years a drought, and they all moved south. Now the Indians was not driving V8s, had no coal fired powered stations, this whole global warming is a money making exercise for the governments.


----------



## Atlas79 (31 January 2010)

I'd have thought the global warming thing would have been pretty reasonably shot down by the fact that


IT IS GETTING COLDER, NOT WARMER


even without the evidence of fraud by scientists being paid to perpetuate the fraud. But then I guess I'm not a scientist.


----------



## RamonR (31 January 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> IT IS GETTING COLDER, NOT WARMER




I assume you are talking about temperature in Northern Europe.

read the following link if you are interested in educating yourself on this issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation


----------



## tja125 (31 January 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> I'd have thought the global warming thing would have been pretty reasonably shot down by the fact that
> 
> 
> IT IS GETTING COLDER, NOT WARMER
> ...





Yes even the scientists agree that some places are getting colder, which is why the whole world now calls it "climate change", not "global warming". This does not mean we are not responsible or that nothing needs to be done either. Don't get frustrated Vizion most of the people on this forum are either completley brainwashed by the crap that people like lord monckton (and others) dribble, or they have some other reason they want to believe that climate change is a big conspiracy.


----------



## Atlas79 (31 January 2010)

RamonR said:


> I assume you are talking about temperature in Northern Europe.
> 
> read the following link if you are interested in educating yourself on this issue
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation






Thank you for the opportunity to educate (via the "anyone can edit" and therefore certainly propoganda-free wikipedia, right?) I will go to your link, to blast from my mind any notion that a large firey ball of gas, from which we get all our heat, also known as THE SUN, may just have something to do with our fluctations in temperature 

Oh, and that sunspot activity coincides with recent rises/falls in temperature 

If I do, can I stick my hand out for some grant money and a cushy UN job?


----------



## So_Cynical (31 January 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Thank you for the opportunity to educate (via the "anyone can edit" and therefore certainly propoganda-free wikipedia, right?)




Here's one from the Geological Society of America 1999 that has nothing to do the that crazy, world wide leftist, conspiracy, one world Govt site wiki  (yep that's right 1999, this discussion is nothing new for some of us)

What If the Conveyor Were to Shut Down? Reflections on a Possible Outcome of the Great Global Experiment.

http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/teaching/Broecker99.html

Yep the ice caps are melting because its getting warmer.  the thing is that i guarantee that if the northern conveyor shuts down, or is disrupted or shifts south, the deniers will just say its a natural phenomenon and Europe freezing is just a natural event....after all Europe has frozen in lots of ice ages.


----------



## RamonR (31 January 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Thank you for the opportunity to educate (via the "anyone can edit" and therefore certainly propoganda-free wikipedia, right?) I will go to your link, to blast from my mind any notion that a large firey ball of gas, from which we get all our heat, also known as THE SUN, may just have something to do with our fluctations in temperature




Of course that big ball of gas has something to do with it. 
As you say it is the source of all ( not quite but most ) of our heat.

I see that straying from investment discussions has been contour productive.
No one is going to change their minds , so not much point in discussing this issue.


----------



## Atlas79 (31 January 2010)

Getting involved in this thread was like inviting JW's into the living room, pouring drinks for them and then trying to convert them to atheism.

Very well - I will leave you to your articles of faith. Enjoy


----------



## Atlas79 (31 January 2010)

P.s., does the fact that global warming scientists were, um, *conspiring* to fudge their results not make it an, um, *conspiracy*?

So call it a conspiracy theory. You're quite right, except for the theory part, it's now established fact.

Over and out.


----------



## Mr J (1 February 2010)

RamonR said:


> I see that straying from investment discussions has been contour productive.
> No one is going to change their minds , so not much point in discussing this issue.




If you enter a debate with your mind already made up, shouldn't you expect the same of others? Why is your mind made up anyway, are you an expert? Do you know for certain? Few of us, if any, have any idea of what is going on - of that much I'm certain. This would be funny if it wasn't going to cost us one way or another (okay, it's still kind of funny : ).


----------



## GumbyLearner (1 February 2010)

No.

But why should I pay for you're company's misgivings?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 February 2010)

Al gore needs to be put in the dock and prosecuted for causing untold misery to the world.

His scam about the Weather has now been shown to be unproven.

A heavy sentence should be imposed by an International Tribunal to deter similar entrepreneurs from leeching public funds for their own benefit in the future.

gg


----------



## sneak'n (1 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> :sleeping: More ad hominem... plus the good old oil lobby/conservative conspiracy theory.



I made observations about your posting style, and they are now well reflected in each one in reply to me.
I have not raised anything that suggests a conspiracy theory.  There are, however, well established links between conservative politics and the carbon energy sector and those that actively deny global warming. Lord Monckton's alliances would bear this out.




> Sneaky, your argument technique is disingenuous. You accuse me of being unable to discuss science, yet you offer none yourself apart from broad assertions drawn from IPCC propaganda and Gore movies. Then make outrageous misrepresentations of my views... nay, downright lies.



I have raised the issue of forcings, which lie at the foundations of global warming theory.  In simple terms this scientific principle suggests that adding greenhouse gases to the earths' atmosphere must make it warmer.  It is your choice not to discuss it.
I have not mentioned Gore or the IPCC in any posts to date, so please take care not to misrepresent my views. 



> If it wasn't so boring it would be laughable.



 Not sure what value this adds to your post.



> I'm quite prepared for any discussion, if you'd care to raise your game to one of integrity and credibility. Thus far, you have shown the precise opposite.



Please see my point above on forcings.



> The ball is your court. Show us why IPCC members who have misled the public and policy makers and enriched themselves at our expense should not be prosecuted.



That is not what I have raised in my posts.  However, the overall theme of the IPCC's case is that there is man made global warming, and they have presented a wide range of evidence in support.  It may not measure up in every instance, which is always regrettable.  That may not diminish their principal findings, and it would be premature to suggest at this point in time that anyone has been misled.


----------



## wayneL (1 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> I made observations about your posting style, and they are now well reflected in each one in reply to me.
> I have not raised anything that suggests a conspiracy theory.  There are, however, well established links between conservative politics and the carbon energy sector and those that actively deny global warming. Lord Monckton's alliances would bear this out.



Pot, Kettle and Black come to mind. Ref Gore, Pachauri et al. The vested interests involved in the warmist camp are probably greater than any VIs in the Realist's camp



> I have raised the issue of forcings, which lie at the foundations of global warming theory.  In simple terms this scientific principle suggests that adding greenhouse gases to the earths' atmosphere must make it warmer.  It is your choice not to discuss it.
> I have not mentioned Gore or the IPCC in any posts to date, so please take care not to misrepresent my views.



Gore and the IPCC are intrinsic to co2 based global warming belief. You have not presented any science whatsoever, only regurgitated assertions that are in dispute and sufficiently doubtful to look to other factors as the major forcings in climate. 

I have repeated a number of times now, if you present some actual science, I'm quite prepared to discuss it to the extent of my understanding.

You talk science, yet present opinions. There is nothing wrong with that if you admit to it. My opinions are just that, based on my readings of both sides of the issue - my opinion. 

BTW - Global Warming Theory does not qualify as theory. It is merely a hypothesis. It is certainly not fact, nor the science settled.



> That is not what I have raised in my posts.  However, the overall theme of the IPCC's case is that there is man made global warming, and they have presented a wide range of evidence in support.  It may not measure up in every instance, which is always regrettable.  That may not diminish their principal findings, and it would be premature to suggest at this point in time that anyone has been misled.




They have cherry-picked evidence, this is irrefutable. In fact I posted evidence in another post that showed that the conclusions were decided before the results were in. In other words, only research that agreed with the hypothesis would be accepted.

This is not science.

I has also been shown elsewhere that the funding process makes for skewed results. Basically, only research that supports the hypothesis will win funding.

This is a prostitution of scientific process and intellectually fraudulent, not to mention politically motivated...

...not to mention criminally fraudulent in a number of cases.


----------



## Sidamo (1 February 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> His scam about the Weather has now been shown to be unproven.




Unfortunately GG, every time you equate 'weather' and 'climate' you imply that you don't understand the problem, or that you're being wilfully misleading.


----------



## wayneL (1 February 2010)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html

My question is how did the 2035 figure ever get included in the official IPCC position.

It is so scientifically absurd and was so vehemently challenged by glaciologists, there can be only 2 answers.

1/ Extreme incompetence combined with arrogance.

2/ Intentional misinformation (AKA fraud).

Either way, with this and all the other issues, the credibility of the IPCC is in tatters.


----------



## brty (1 February 2010)

Sneak'n,



> In simple terms this scientific principle suggests that adding greenhouse gases to the earths' atmosphere must make it warmer.




I'll take up this challenge if you and other true believers are ready to address the following....

1. For hundreds of millions of years plant-life has been having an unnatural effect on the planet by sequestering vast amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere and placing it underground to the detriment of the climate. The CO2 levels have dropped to such low levels over the last few million years that vast ice sheets have been able to cover large areas of the planet. Luckily for the planet a species has evolved to the point where it has been able to re-release this carbon back into the atmosphere to help restore the CO2 balance back to more 'normal' levels.

2. If the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are currently, then why isn't the temperature and sea level the same as then?? ie 3-6 degrees warmer and 15-40 metres higher?? If you believe in a lag and CO2 is it, then current levels of Co2 in the atmosphere should have you argueing to spend vast amounts on adapting to the changes likely to happen and not on reducing the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere.

3. What would the climate be doing, change wise, without the influence of man, given that we are at the end of a 'natural'  warming period anyway (or very close to it).

brty


----------



## Sidamo (1 February 2010)

brty said:


> 1. For hundreds of millions of years plant-life has been having an unnatural effect on the planet by sequestering vast amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere and placing it underground to the detriment of the climate. The CO2 levels have dropped to such low levels over the last few million years that vast ice sheets have been able to cover large areas of the planet. Luckily for the planet a species has evolved to the point where it has been able to re-release this carbon back into the atmosphere to help restore the CO2 balance back to more 'normal' levels.




Unfortunately for this species, it has never existed when CO2 levels were at their so-called 'normal' levels, and it has a tendency to build its main population centres in low-lying areas close to the ocean, thereby leaving it exposed to severe risk of flooding etc. if sea levels rise back to 'normal' levels. 



brty said:


> 2. If the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are currently, then why isn't the temperature and sea level the same as then?? ie 3-6 degrees warmer and 15-40 metres higher?? If you believe in a lag and CO2 is it, then current levels of Co2 in the atmosphere should have you argueing to spend vast amounts on adapting to the changes likely to happen and not on reducing the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere.




Although the absolute levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are a problem, what's a bigger issue is the rate of increase. 280 -> ~390ppm, or about 40% increase in roughly 200 years is far too fast to allow natural systems to adapt. So, there's an inherent lag. Your argument is that we accept the inevitable and plan for it, however, logically, since we can put the stuff into the atmosphere so fast, we can also remove it pretty quickly if we choose to do so, thereby possibly preventing the issues in the first place.




brty said:


> 3. What would the climate be doing, change wise, without the influence of man, given that we are at the end of a 'natural'  warming period anyway (or very close to it).




The global average temperature would be about 0.75C degrees cooler and the climate would be roughly the same as it was pre-industrialisation. We may be at the end of a warming period, but, left to its own devices, global climate doesn't generally change drastically on the order of decades, more on the order of centuries. Estimations of global temperature from ice core data express historical temperatures as a difference compared to the average temp. over the last 100 years. The estimations show that the global average temp (GAT) drops to 9C under the current average during the peak of the last four ice ages, and rises to +2C over the current average during the warming periods following the last 4 ice ages. Presumably this is where the "we should limit temp increase to 2C" comes from. Those peak temperatures have been accompanied by CO2 levels of around 300-320ppm.


----------



## sneak'n (1 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> I have repeated a number of times now, if you present some actual science, I'm quite prepared to discuss it to the extent of my understanding.



I can only repeat that the science of forcings - radiative forcings in the climate context - is pivotal to global climate change.  Do you wish to explain why you are not prepared to discuss this vital aspect of climate science?


> BTW - Global Warming Theory does not qualify as theory. It is merely a hypothesis. It is certainly not fact, nor the science settled.



 That would only be true if the empirical evidence that shows warming was not available.  Do you contend there is no emperical evidence in recent times to suggest the earth has warmed?


----------



## brty (1 February 2010)

Sidamo,



> what's a bigger issue is the rate of increase.






> increase in roughly 200 years is far too fast to allow natural systems to adapt.




That is total garbage, as the type of events in the past, huge volcanic eruptions (think yellowstone) or asteroid strikes have changed things on a massive scale very quickly, yet the natural systems have adapted. Any change causes natural systems to adapt. What the true believers are trying to say with this cr@p is that existing natural systems need time to move their terrain to a similar climate space that they enjoyed before. What the real science shows is that changes occur very quickly, the climate tends to change abruptly and plant and animal systems evolve into something new to accommodate the changes in climate.



> global climate doesn't generally change drastically on the order of decades




So what was the 'younger dryas'?? an aberration in the data that didn't exist??? 



> the climate would be roughly the same as it was pre-industrialisation.




Which "same", the climate of the little ice age or the climate of the medieval warm period?? The historic records clearly show that the climate is constantly changing, so why would it now not be changing???

brty


----------



## wayneL (1 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> I can only repeat that the science of forcings - radiative forcings in the climate context - is pivotal to global climate change.  Do you wish to explain why you are not prepared to discuss this vital aspect of climate science?



ROFL Is English not your first language?



> That would only be true if the empirical evidence that shows warming was not available.  Do you contend there is no emperical evidence in recent times to suggest the earth has warmed?




Let me rephrase - "anthropogenic" climate change is a hypothesis, particularly co2 induced AGW.


----------



## derty (1 February 2010)

brty said:


> That is total garbage, as the type of events in the past, huge volcanic eruptions (think yellowstone) or asteroid strikes have changed things on a massive scale very quickly, yet the natural systems have adapted. Any change causes natural systems to adapt. What the true believers are trying to say with this cr@p is that existing natural systems need time to move their terrain to a similar climate space that they enjoyed before. What the real science shows is that changes occur very quickly, the climate tends to change abruptly and plant and animal systems evolve into something new to accommodate the changes in climate.



In all fairness brty - not the best of arguments to put forward.  As while, yes, there have been significant events that have had rapid effects on the climate, these events are usually accompanied by mass extinctions and the following adaptation and balance occur over millennia. 

*IF* the rapid relative increase in atmospheric CO2 is to blame for the observed temp increases and *IF* it portents future temperature rises outside the survival envelope for critical species in the food chain, Earth will not be a very nice place to be for a time span significantly greater than the average human life.


----------



## bellenuit (1 February 2010)

brty said:


> That is total garbage, as the type of events in the past, huge volcanic eruptions (think yellowstone) or asteroid strikes have changed things on a massive scale very quickly, yet the natural systems have adapted. Any change causes natural systems to adapt. What the true believers are trying to say with this cr@p is that existing natural systems need time to move their terrain to a similar climate space that they enjoyed before. What the real science shows is that changes occur very quickly, the climate tends to change abruptly and plant and animal systems evolve into something new to accommodate the changes in climate.




Brty. Although I agree with what you are saying here, isn't the issue that is of concern to us is whether the human species can adapt to such quick changes. I have no doubt the planet and biological life in general will survive abrupt climate changes, what is of concern to me as a human being is will human beings survive.


----------



## Sidamo (1 February 2010)

brty said:


> That is total garbage, as the type of events in the past, huge volcanic eruptions (think yellowstone) or asteroid strikes have changed things on a massive scale very quickly, yet the natural systems have adapted.




I presume we're trying to avoid the 'adapt by extinction' and 'adapt by mass death' options? 

We all know the planet will soldier on and adapt to whatever we throw at it. The question is how will modern society adapt to the changes. When the climate has changed very suddenly in the past, there tends to have been nasty consequences, cf: dinosaurs, and there are now so many of us that we're a lot more susceptible to changes than we were even 200 years ago.

As for Younger Dryas, I never suggested the climate didn't change, just that *in general* it doesn't do so rapidly. Your highlighting of an event when it did change rapidly 12000 years ago, doesn't invalidate what I said at all.



brty said:


> Which "same", the climate of the little ice age or the climate of the medieval warm period?? The historic records clearly show that the climate is constantly changing, so why would it now not be changing???




"Pre-industrial" refers to approx. 1750. Again, I never suggested the climate doesn't change, merely that it would be approximately 0.75C cooler *on average* than it is now, given that that is the estimated contribution our extra C)2 has made to temperature. The climate would still be changing, it would most likely just be oscillating around a lower mean.

As recently as 1900 there were less than a billion people on the planet. Pressure for food/water/land/resources was consequently a lot less. Given that forecasts put 9 billion or so of us on the planet by 2050, with a large part of that 9 billions requiring far more resources than your average 1900 person (incl. requiring those resources for a much longer life), you can see why there might be less 'give' in the system and less resiliency to possible consequences of climate change.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 February 2010)

RamonR said:


> I am no spring chicken but just in case this is real I want action taken now.



Don't forget that by taking action now, we are guaranteeing truly massive ecological disruption in non-CO2 ways in order to lower CO2 emissions. That's not the sort of thing I'd like to do without reasonable certainty that it's actually necessary...


----------



## GumbyLearner (2 February 2010)

Why climate change is a 'scam'

Here's a link to an interview by The Age with Lord Monckton

http://media.theage.com.au/opinion/...c-clouds-the-weather-issue-20100201-n8y3.html

Good to hear he touches on the consequential school of ethics when it comes to hunger in third world countries and the use of bio-fuels. Rather than just follow the deontological fallacy of the science.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Why climate change is a 'scam'
> 
> Here's a link to an interview by The Age with Lord Monckton
> 
> ...




Christopher Monckton has quite a good mind and I would heed carefully what he says.

I sat in the seat next to him on a plane once from Denver to London in the 80s, when he was under fire for his controversial policy on AIDS. He proposed quarantining those with the disease and testing everyone yearly, in order to eradicate it. I thought it would never get up, and it didn't. I told him so.

He is correct on this Weather debate though. All this EPS nonsense will make paupers out of the Third World. 

Perhaps we should quarantine Gore, Kev07, Wong et al? This belief in theendoftheworld is like AIDS.

gg


----------



## SmellyTerror (2 February 2010)

> Only if you cherry-pick the science. The evidence of this can't be much clearer.




That's your answer? I show why your claim that the Himalayan glacier issue has nothing to do with the science, and you don't contest what I've said - but you don't mind making the claim again. I answer your posts with the best data science has to offer, and instead of telling us where you're getting *your* data you just wave you hand and claim "cherry picking".

Do you even know what cherry picking is? (You clearly don't know what ad hom means). How on earth is posting the generally accepted temperature record "cherry picking"? Please, tell me what you think cherry picking is.

You dismiss the model. Oh, you can't be confident they could know the temperatures in a year, let alone ten. Well here's the predictions from the mid-90's - this is the data from the IPCC TAR _Summary for Policy Makers_. The grey part shows the expected range, the dotted lines the scenarios. The full  blue and red lines are the actual observed data in the more-than-ten years following the report (GISS and HadCRU respectively):







I'd say that's a PRETTY GOOD MATCH, wouldn't you? Done with 15-odd years less of data collection, research and computing power than we have now.

So what on EARTH do you base your scepticism on, exactly? Do you have any figures, or do you just make them up?

Look, let's put the science aside for a moment. *Let's go to first principles.*

To believe that the majority of scientists on earth are engaged in a vast conspiracy, you have to believe that there have been no defectors. Any one could come out of that system with a massive paper trail - just the sort of thing that "Climategate" *pretended* to be (and if there are any readers who still think that those leaked emails showed a god-damn thing about faked science, please feel free to point out something in there that convinces you of that, and I'll be happy to address it).

There are tens of thousands of people working on this. Any one of them could blow the lid off this by coming out with a paper trail. They would be RICH AND FAMOUS - or as rich and famous as any scientist could get. There are thousands of papers published, thousands of research projects in progress, every one with many people intimately involved and every one would have to be manipulating data or hiding it to conform to the "orthodoxy". The paper trail would be immense.

Yet... nothing.

You guys suggest that they're all doing this for the funding - but :

1. Note that the *research* scientists who are saying that AGW is happening are the guys saying the science is sown up. They don't get funding for something they say they know, they get money to explore new things. Different people altogether get money for solutions (politicians, media wh0res, engineers, and so on).

2. Any individual who broke ranks with evidence would be a world wide celebrity. They would be in the history books. They would have interview deals, book deals, adoration galore, and a truck load of money. And you think that not one single poorly-paid graduate student has bothered to copy some emails, nab a hard drive? That they're all pawns of the conspiracy, every single one?

If you guys believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Look, to try to put this in a trading context (even if I don't know trading from my own backside), you're like people who have read, over and over, that market makers manipulate the spread just to take out retail traders. You think this despite all the people who know what they're talking about saying it's nonsense. You think it despite the fact that it's way too hard and way too expensive to be worth the bother. *You think it only because you've been sitting in little echo-chamber forums and blogs for so long that you think it's obvious.* Even though, to the rest of the world, the idea is ludicrous.

There's nothing in it for the research scientists to lie like this. They are not the ones profiting. And even if they were, the idea of a conspiracy so vast, with massive inducements for the first person to break ranks, is just flat out impossible. You guys point to something like the Himalaya thing, a peice of propaganda (if that's what it was) so completely idiotic (they KNEW the media had it, so if they'd knownthey were wrong about the data they MUST have known it would come out and damage their credibility) that this would be the single dopiest conspiracy in the history of the world.

Yet you credit them with an international conspiracy of immense proportions, maintained against the direct interest of the individuals involved.


Further reading:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/05/climate-myths-special.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288

---

...and now you're quoting *Monckton* as a reliable source??? Dear GOD, people!

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/


----------



## GumbyLearner (2 February 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He proposed quarantining those with the disease and testing everyone yearly, in order to eradicate it. I thought it would never get up, and it didn't. I told him so.
> 
> gg




I am surprised that someone with your apparent stature, throw and influence couldn't change his mind GG.


----------



## GumbyLearner (2 February 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> That's your answer? I show why your claim that the Himalayan glacier issue has nothing to do with the science, and you don't contest what I've said - but you don't mind making the claim again. I answer your posts with the best data science has to offer, and instead of telling us where you're getting *your* data you just wave you hand and claim "cherry picking".
> 
> Do you even know what cherry picking is? (You clearly don't know what ad hom means). How on earth is posting the generally accepted temperature record "cherry picking"? Please, tell me what you think cherry picking is.
> 
> ...




I'm questioning the philosophy behind the solution. An ETS. I owe no duty to a science that claims I morally should do so, if the consequences of such bring suffering. If fellow human beings will become hungrier and poorer as a result of an ETS, I vote no.

Hunger is suffering.

GL


----------



## GumbyLearner (2 February 2010)

Imagine if an ETS became like a free market Enron. I can hear the traders now.
Instead of "Let 'em freeze or let 'em sweat." 

"Let em starve." 

Which is the great thing about ASF, at least you get to *ask why?
*


----------



## blueroo (2 February 2010)

The following email lobbed into my inbox today. Can't confirm the veracity of it though so take it as you will.

<COPY>
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen , Norway ... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. 




[scroll down]




 I'm sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post.
</COPY>


----------



## Investor82 (2 February 2010)

Hey GG
I used to sit on your side with this argument. I was always arguing with friends that there was no "solid" evidence of GW. It is easy to dismiss a lot of the "science" when there is an obvious conflict of interest (ie a report from a scientist from the "Global Warming Research Institute") They are never going to publish anything which disputes the argument. 

Now I am no researcher, or scientist for that matter, however after spending 6 months looking at the topic during a Post Grad unit I now find it pretty difficult to argue that a) Global warming is not occuring (I never argued it wasnt, I just argued that humans were not the cause and it was "natural") b) Humans  are not the primary cause. 

If you have plenty of time on your hands read the Stern Report. I found it pretty interesting and it opened my eyes to a lot of unknowns. It is bloody long, so just pick out the parts you find interesting. 

I would be interested to hear if, after reading the Stern Report, you still maintain your argument. 

All the best. 
Blacky


----------



## basilio (2 February 2010)

I think prosecuting climate change advocates is just a waste of energy.  We just need a good ol neck tie party to string up a few of the main culprits and that will quieten down the rest of the rabble.

I'm glad (maybe ) that Garpal and co have seduced a few new people into arguing against their denier conspiracy theories. I just hope these newbies don't spend too much time working out that no amount of considered scientific research, logical argument or even the simple possibility that even if there was a 10% chance  our CO2 emissions were going to knock us off we should do something about it is going to move these guys.  Good luck. 

Over and out.


----------



## SmellyTerror (2 February 2010)

> I'm questioning the philosophy behind the solution. An ETS. I owe no duty to a science that claims I morally should do so, if the consequences of such bring suffering. If fellow human beings will become hungrier and poorer as a result of an ETS, I vote no.




The proposed solutions have not one tiny thing to do with the science of whether or not it's happening. 

Not. One. Thing.

The science it not saying one tiny thing about what you should or should not do, simply what is happening and what may happen given different courses of action. IF you want to avoid climate change, you need to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere, or do something else to cool the planet. How you go about that is for the politicians to work out. There's also a lot on what will happen if you do nothing, in case you want to try to just ride it out. That action is up to the politicians too.

...and of course, they screw it up. That's their job. Our political systems are built to make sure pretty much nothing effectual ever gets done.

But if it's your concern about human suffering that is driving you, then I'm a bit confised how you can say that the likely effects of climate change will do less damage to the poor and hungry than the development of sustainable energy sources (something we are going to have to do anyway, in the long run). Food shortages are one of the most likely effects of climate change.

So we can do something when we're forced to, or we can do it now and avoid the addional pain of major climate change. Either way we do it, but which way has less pain?



> My question is how did the 2035 figure ever get included in the official IPCC position.




Sorry, missed this one.

There's a decent discussion here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/a_beat_up_of_himalayan_proport.php

Are you actually interested, though? You want to think it's just a (really inept) conspiracy, right?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 February 2010)

Investor82 said:


> Hey GG
> I used to sit on your side with this argument. I was always arguing with friends that there was no "solid" evidence of GW. It is easy to dismiss a lot of the "science" when there is an obvious conflict of interest (ie a report from a scientist from the "Global Warming Research Institute") They are never going to publish anything which disputes the argument.
> 
> Now I am no researcher, or scientist for that matter, however after spending 6 months looking at the topic during a Post Grad unit I now find it pretty difficult to argue that a) Global warming is not occuring (I never argued it wasnt, I just argued that humans were not the cause and it was "natural") b) Humans  are not the primary cause.
> ...




Thanks mate,

The Weather forecast says its going to rain in Townsville on the weekend, so I'll download it and give it a read. If it rains. Otherwise I'll read it later.

gg


----------



## Atlas79 (2 February 2010)

basilio said:


> I think prosecuting climate change advocates is just a waste of energy.  We just need a good ol neck tie party to string up a few of the main culprits and that will quieten down the rest of the rabble.
> 
> I'm glad (maybe ) that Garpal and co have seduced a few new people into arguing against their denier conspiracy theories. I just hope these newbies don't spend too much time working out that no amount of considered scientific research, logical argument or even the simple possibility that even if there was a 10% chance  our CO2 emissions were going to knock us off we should do something about it is going to move these guys.  Good luck.
> 
> Over and out.




Tell you what, when the "solution" results in my own personal enrichment to the tune of 7 or 8 figures, I'll join the Al Gore camp


----------



## GumbyLearner (2 February 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> The proposed solutions have not one tiny thing to do with the science of whether or not it's happening.
> 
> Not. One. Thing.
> 
> ...




Oh really?? Read this critique by Professor George Reisman of Sir Nicholas Stern's UK government funded proposal. The part about the goat is especially prescient. 

http://georgereisman.com/blog/2006/11/britains-stern-review-on-global.html

Sir Nicholas’s and the rest of the environmental movement’s hostility to carbon technology, is ultimately contrary to purpose not only insofar as it prevents the development of the low-carbon technologies they claim to favor, but also in that it simultaneously, and more fundamentally, operates to deprive the world of the ability to counteract destructive climate change, such as global warming.

Whether or not they are aware of it, in attempting to combat alleged global warming, Sir Nicholas, and the rest of the environmentalists, are urging a policy of deliberate counteractive global climate change by the world’s governments. They want the world’s governments to change the world’s climate from the path that they believe it is otherwise destined to take. They want the world’s governments to make the earth’s climate cooler than they believe it will otherwise be as the next two centuries or more unfold. But their policy of climate control is the most stupid one imaginable. *It’s more stupid than a modern-day equivalent of a savage’s attempting to control nature by the sacrifice of his goat.*

*The reason it’s more stupid, much more stupid, is that the goat that they want to sacrifice is most of modern industrial civilization—the part that depends on the 80% of the carbon emissions they want to eliminate, and which will not be replaced through any magical power of words to create and control reality, however much they may believe in that power. *It is precisely modern industrial civilization and its further expansion and intensification that is mankind’s means of coping with all aspects of nature, including, if it should ever actually be necessary, the ability to control the earth’s climate, whether to cool it down or to warm it up.

If mankind ever really finds it necessary to control the earth’s climate, whether to prevent global warming or, as is in fact probably more likely, a new ice age, its ability to do so will depend on the power of its economic system. An economic system with the ability to provide such things as massive lasers, fleets of rocket ships carrying cargoes of various chemicals, equipment, and materials for deployment in outer space, with the ability to create major chemical reactions here on earth too, if necessary—such an economic system will have far more ability to make possible any necessary change in the earth’s climate. That is the kind of economic system we could reasonably expect to have in coming generations, if it is not prevented from coming into existence by policies hostile to economic progress, notably those urged by Sir Nicholas and the environmental movement.

*What Sir Nicholas and the rest of the environmental movement offer is merely the destruction of much of our existing means of coping with nature and the aborting of the development of new and additional means.* To the extent that their program is enacted, it will serve to prevent effectively dealing with global warming if that should ever actually be necessary.

A major word of caution is necessary here. The above discussion implies that the use of modern technology to control climate is infinitely more reasonable than the virtually insane policy of attempting to control climate by means of destroying modern technology. The word of caution is that in the hands of government, a policy of climate control based on the use modern technology could be almost as dangerous as the policy of government climate control by means of the destruction of modern technology.

In fact, a possible outcome of today’s intellectual chaos on the subjects of environment and government is a combination of major destruction of our economic system resulting from policies based on hostility to carbon technology and climate damage caused by governmental efforts to control climate through the use of modern technology. It’s not impossible that what we might end up with is an economic system largely destroyed by environmentalist policies plus the start of a new ice age resulting from government efforts to counteract global warming through the use of technologically inspired counter measures.

The only safe response to global warming, if that in fact is what is unfolding, or to global freezing, when that develops, as it inevitably will, is the maximum degree of individual freedom. (For elaboration and proof of this proposition, see Capitalism, pp. 88-90.)

Any serious consideration of the proposals made in the Stern Review for radically reducing carbon technology and the accompanying calls for immediacy in enacting them makes clear in a further way how utterly impractical the environmentalist program for controlling global warming actually is. The fundamental impracticality of the program, of course, lies in its utterly destructive character. But in addition to that, the fact that people are not prepared easily or quickly to make a massive sacrifice of their self-interests dooms the enactment of the program. Even if, in utter contradiction of the truth, the program were sound, it would simply not be possible to enact it in time to satisfy the environmentalists that the level of carbon buildup they fear will not occur. In other words, the world is quickly moving past the window of opportunity for enacting the environmentalists’ program for controlling global warming. (Concerning this point, see pp. xi-xii of the Executive Summary, especially Figure 3 on p. xii.) The implication is that either they will have to find another issue or different means for addressing the issue.

The only different means, however, are technological in character. Environmentalism thus stands a very strong chance of ultimately reverting to the more traditional socialism of massive government construction and engineering projects. It’s future may well lie with what is coming to be called “geo-engineering.” We shall see.

*Again I come back to the fact that these kind of reports are premised on deontological ethics and not on consequences.    *


----------



## sneak'n (2 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> Let me rephrase - "anthropogenic" climate change is a hypothesis, particularly co2 induced AGW.



If you prefer your definition, so be it.  The semantics will not change what is is occurring in the natural world.

On entering ASF, this thread was at the top and your contention that "the CO2 causes climate change hypothesis has been thoroughly trashed " caught my attention.

A question to ponder: CO2 is just one of a number of gases that are labelled "greenhouse gases", so would it be wrong to infer that others in the class, if we were to stretch Mr L's contention, are similarly unable to impact climate change through man's predominant role in nature? 

Specifically in this thread I have raised the principle of forcings and sought from Mr L his views on the topic.  As Mr L has demonstrated strong views on the IPCC's role in shaping broader opinion on climate change, it could be useful for him to indicate how this element of climate change science should be ignored.

To date Mr L has done little to justify the contention that brought me into this thread. He has, however, demostrated in his responses every element of personal attack that he otherwise attributes to his posting adversaries.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Why climate change is a 'scam'
> 
> Here's a link to an interview by The Age with Lord Monckton
> 
> ...




GL its worse.

New info from the UK Guardian that a Chinese bloke measuring Temperatures in China for all these graphs was fiddling the results and that attempts were made to delete emails alluding to the whole Univ East Anglia cockup of research.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese


gg


----------



## SmellyTerror (2 February 2010)

GL: I said that the proposed solutions to the situation has no bearing on the science that has detected that we have the situation. You posted... the above.

...you know Nicholas Stern is an _economist_, right?

...

I also mentioned that the science also tells us the consequences of not acting, so we can better deal with them if we do fail to take action. So, uh, yay science? What exactly are you objecting to in my post?

DO YOU UNDERTAND THAT YOUR DISLIKE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES, SOLUTIONS AND POLITICAL NONSENSE SURROUNDING THIS ISSUE HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT AGW IS HAPPENING?

I bold that because, no matter how much I talk about the science, you guys keep coming back with political bull**** that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If a scientist told you you were about to drive off a cliff, and told you you need to either turn your car or prepare for freefall -> impact, would you rant against him for daring to tell you what to do? If a politician said that, no, you should just jump out your window and throw him your wallet, would you STILL RANT AGAINST THE SCIENTIST?


----------



## GumbyLearner (2 February 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> GL:
> 
> DO YOU UNDERTAND THAT YOUR DISLIKE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES, SOLUTIONS AND POLITICAL NONSENSE SURROUNDING THIS ISSUE HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT AGW IS HAPPENING?
> 
> I bold that because, no matter how much I talk about the science, you guys keep coming back with political bull**** that has absolutely nothing to do with it.




I find that statement quite insulting SmellyTerrier.

You see the problem with your presumptions for solutions is that you don't understand Marx. You think 'use value' and 'exchange value' are one and the same thing. You think that there is this mystical moral duty to science that exists whereby people around the world regardless of their economic station in which they live require a huge tax in order to save the planet. 

Even goat herders in Greece have been planting olive trees on the cliffs of the Aegean during times of drought for millenia. I think they understood 'global warming' eons ago and adapted the only commercial resource available to them at the time to both survive commercially and in perpetuity. 

Don't preach to me sunshine!


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 February 2010)

Investor82 said:


> Now I am no researcher, or scientist for that matter, however after spending 6 months looking at the topic during a Post Grad unit I now find it pretty difficult to argue that a) Global warming is not occuring (I never argued it wasnt, I just argued that humans were not the cause and it was "natural") b) Humans  are not the primary cause.
> 
> If you have plenty of time on your hands read the Stern Report. I found it pretty interesting and it opened my eyes to a lot of unknowns. It is bloody long, so just pick out the parts you find interesting.
> 
> I would be interested to hear if, after reading the Stern Report, you still maintain your argument.



I've read quite a bit of it and found a major, fatal flaw in the Report. Specifically, it assumes emissions from the combustion of natural gas and particularly oil that substantially exceeds the vast majority of credible estimates of world recoverable reserves. 

That is a serious, fatal flaw - if the oil isn't there to burn then there's no chance we're going to burn it. 

Personally, I do think that a significant part of the whole CO2 issue amounts to nothing more than a diversion from the overall issues surrounding energy, a topic I've had an interest in for a couple of decades now. It's the great taboo - don't mention what's already happened to oil discovery rates. Don't mention the incredibly dangerous (in a political sense) geographic concentration of natural gas. Don't mention the chronic lack of investment in energy generally. Just pretend instead that we've got so much of the stuff that all we need to worry about is the effects from using it (CO2) and who owns the power plants. Wrong, very, very wrong when you look at the hard data.

I wonder how many Australians realise that Bass Strait oil is essentially gone now and production has collapsed? I wonder how many realise that Cooper Basin (SA) gas production is going the same way? And so on around the world from Venezuela to Mexico to Norway.

Running out of oil? No! But we're in real trouble in terms of maintaining production with the levels of effort (expense, cost) we're used to. The geology just doesn't seem to support that. And if we have to put a lot more in (pay a lot more) for energy then that blows the CO2 argument out of the water...


----------



## Atlas79 (3 February 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> If a scientist told you you were about to drive off a cliff, and told you you need to either turn your car or prepare for freefall -> impact, would you rant against him for daring to tell you what to do? If a politician said that, no, you should just jump out your window and throw him your wallet, would you STILL RANT AGAINST THE SCIENTIST?




What if a politician paid a scientist to instruct me to drive off a cliff, so the politician could sieze more control of the house I'd left behind? Should I blindly trust the scientist because he calls himself a scientist but acts like a ***** and a liar?


----------



## Sidamo (3 February 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> New info from the UK Guardian that a Chinese bloke measuring Temperatures in China for all these graphs was fiddling the results




The article also notes that said researcher was cleared of any fraud by his university.

Furthermore, the paper in question is a 20yr old paper on the Urban Heat Island effect, and even *IF* there are genuine concerns (amongst scientists, not amongst sceptics) about the paper, there are a number of far more recent papers which confirm the findings of the Chinese paper in question, using completely different data from the US.

Frankly, in an entire field of science, spanning multiple disciplines, there's bound to be a few mistakes. In fact, if there were NO mistakes, then you could suggest that it's all too perfect and start making your conspiracy claims.

Sceptics seem to think the AGW issue is a house of cards and if they can remove a card or two here and there the whole thing will come falling down. That's clearly not the case. Most of what we know about AGW has come from multiple different sources. There are thousands of interwoven strands, and if one or two of those strands turn out to be so flawed that the papers in question require retraction, it won't make any difference.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (3 February 2010)

Sidamo said:


> ....Sceptics seem to think the AGW issue is a house of cards and if they can remove a card or two here and there the whole thing will come falling down. That's clearly not the case. Most of what we know about AGW has come from multiple different sources. There are thousands of interwoven strands, and if one or two of those strands turn out to be so flawed that the papers in question require retraction, it won't make any difference.




And this is where you're completely wrong on the 'strand' assumption. The further the IPCC and cohorts are investigated the deeper the scam becomes....

More than a couple of strands here....  http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/climategate/history/climategate_timeline_banner.pdf

And there's much more being pubished on the internet everyday. This is just the tip of the iceburg.


----------



## Purple XS2 (3 February 2010)

basilio said:


> ... prosecuting climate change advocates is just a waste of energy ...




Nuttiest. Thread. Ever.

GG, you've set the bar higher (lower ..? further ...?) than I could have imagined. I'm stunned with an amazement bordering on stupefication(sic)



> Over and out.




And it's goodnight from me.


----------



## wayneL (3 February 2010)

Purple XS2 said:


> Nuttiest. Thread. Ever.
> 
> GG, you've set the bar higher (lower ..? further ...?) than I could have imagined. I'm stunned with an amazement bordering on stupefication(sic)



ROTFL

I must point out that it was the warmists (viz, "Dr" James Hansen) that started the prosecution theme.


----------



## sneak'n (3 February 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It would appear that the global warming debate has been a combination of ignorance, misguided science, greedy opportunists and gullibility in equal measure, by those who argue in its favour.



Mr Gumnut
May I make observations about you, firstly, that you are a stirrer - based on the wonderful thread titles you initiate - and secondly that your audience cares significantly more about these dodgy topics than you.
Congratulations for flushing out so many gullible globe trotters.
I suspect you would equally be willing to propose that those of ignorance, misunderstanding the science,  greedy and gullible in equal measure,  who deceitfully argue against global warming should be prosecuted.
Maybe not?
As my few posts in this thread bear out, the science of radiative forcings is not on the table for discussion - at least not with Mr L - yet these forcings measured for greenhouse gases underpin climate change theory.
And for Mr L's benefit I am specifically talking about the "theory", and not about a hypothesis.  
Climate change theory is predicated on a vast array of empirical data that fits the measurable forcings and is able to be demonstrated through a general circulation model (also known as a global climate model).  Predictions into the future may be hypothesised, and this is likely an area that Mr L would contend undesirable.
Mr Gumnut hits the nail on the head when he talks about the level of debate in the general community, but is quite amiss if he thinks this is occurring in the climate science arena.
More and more empirical data becomes available each year, and as it does it gives greater credence that the "theory" is stacking up.
Arguments for the prosecution do not.


----------



## prozac (3 February 2010)

It's one HUGE scam. The perpetrators and the politicians backing it should be gaoled. 

Do a search for Lord Christopher Monckton. This knowledgeable gentleman speaks most eloquently on the subject. Better still, listen to him on 2GB here - http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41 

The reported melting of the Asian glaciers is untrue declared on a lie with no evidence at all? 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc
Who announced it knowing it was pure BS? Non-other than the president of the International Committee on Climate Change (IPCC) some Indian chap who has an interest because he has a business in India that gained millions in grants from the IPCC to study the effect. He is currently under investigation in UK for fraud. 

This is  a good read also. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> Mr Gumnut
> May I make observations about you, firstly, that you are a stirrer - based on the wonderful thread titles you initiate - and secondly that your audience cares significantly more about these dodgy topics than you.
> Congratulations for flushing out so many gullible globe trotters.
> I suspect you would equally be willing to propose that those of ignorance, misunderstanding the science,  greedy and gullible in equal measure,  who deceitfully argue against global warming should be prosecuted.
> ...




You are right sneak'n GG is a stirrer. 

But I think I know what Hegel might have said in response to your last post.

Prove it.


----------



## wayneL (3 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> As my few posts in this thread bear out, the science of radiative forcings is not on the table for discussion - at least not with Mr L - yet these forcings measured for greenhouse gases underpin climate change theory.
> And for Mr L's benefit I am specifically talking about the "theory", and not about a hypothesis.
> Climate change theory is predicated on a vast array of empirical data that fits the measurable forcings and is able to be demonstrated through a general circulation model (also known as a global climate model).  Predictions into the future may be hypothesised, and this is likely an area that Mr L would contend undesirable.
> Mr Gumnut hits the nail on the head when he talks about the level of debate in the general community, but is quite amiss if he thinks this is occurring in the climate science arena.
> ...




Apparently, in the AGW religion it is a greater heresy to speak in favour of sustainability outside of the co2 dogma, than to be an outright denier.

Pielke Snr has found this out as well.

Why is that?

Regarding theory. If one reads outside of the narrow focus of the AGW religious canon, one can see very quickly why the AGW hypothesis cannot qualify as a theory in the strict sense.


----------



## sneak'n (3 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> Apparently, in the AGW religion it is a greater heresy to speak in favour of sustainability outside of the co2 dogma, than to be an outright denier.
> 
> Pielke Snr has found this out as well.
> 
> ...



You had ample opportunity to provide your views on the science that underpins climate change theory, but have chosen belittlement instead.
It is a sad indictment of the menatlity that some bring to this topic.


----------



## wayneL (3 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> You had ample opportunity to provide your views on the science that underpins climate change theory, but have chosen belittlement instead.
> It is a sad indictment of the menatlity that some bring to this topic.




The truth is that it is very time consuming, so I yield to the greater effort of the religious AGW zealots. Additionally, others are doing an admirable job in de-constructing the Goreist/Hensenist version of AGW hypothesis in other places. It is more enjoyable for me to leave the heavy lifting to them and carp from the sidelines instead. 

I've got nothing I want to prove on the issue... which would be futile anyway. I'm happy with my views and happy to let those views evolve as more information comes to hand. Though I'm satisfied the Goreist/Hansenist/RealClimate position is largely BS.

However the fact that I have more pleasant and/or productive things to do with my time, does not change the science, whether I choose to collate it here or not. 

The final arbiter will of course be the climate itself. I await Hughie's verdict with interest. 

Meanwhile, I act on my views on sustainability, which is very much more than the IPCC gravy trainers are prepared to do.

I am at peace with the world... 'cept for those religious AGW zealots who should be locked up for fraud.


----------



## Julia (3 February 2010)

prozac said:


> Do a search for Lord Christopher Monckton. This knowledgeable gentleman speaks most eloquently on the subject. Better still, listen to him on 2GB here - http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41



I'd not heard Lord Monckton speak so was interested in the item about his speech in Sydney featured in the 7.30 Report this evening.

I simply don't know which side is right in this debate, probably am agnostic, veering to sceptic, but I'm sorry to say that Lord Monckton did nothing to win me to his view.  He seemed to me to be an exceptionally egocentric 'personality' who rather pathetically found it necessary to demonstrate to the interviewer that he was a Classics scholar.  I understand he's a mathematician by training.

His presentation was to my mind populist and sneering in that way only the British upper class can do.

He may well be very knowledgeable and an authority on climate change.

Left me completely cold.


----------



## Trembling Hand (3 February 2010)

Julia said:


> I'd not heard Lord Monckton speak so was interested in the item about his speech in Sydney featured in the 7.30 Report this evening.
> 
> I simply don't know which side is right in this debate, probably am agnostic, veering to sceptic, but I'm sorry to say that Lord Monckton did nothing to win me to his view.  He seemed to me to be an exceptionally egocentric 'personality' who rather pathetically found it necessary to demonstrate to the interviewer that he was a Classics scholar.  I understand he's a mathematician by training.
> 
> ...



Julia 

Would you expect anything else from the 7:30 report?? I would suggest you have a listen to this,

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2800684.htm

The counterpoint podcast is a full 28 min of him stating his case. Please, even for the warmist there is some good points that need to be considered.


----------



## sneak'n (4 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> I've got nothing I want to prove on the issue... which would be futile anyway. I'm happy with my views and happy to let those views evolve as more information comes to hand. Though I'm satisfied the Goreist/Hansenist/RealClimate position is largely BS.



It would have been useful for you to defend your statements. However, my original assessment of your capacity to argue a case is validated.



> However the fact that I have more pleasant and/or productive things to do with my time, does not change the science, whether I choose to collate it here or not.



It really is not a matter of "collating" the science, but of understanding it.  This is a big ticket item and it is unfortunate that so many sink into the gutter rather than try to come to grips with its essential theme.



> Meanwhile, I act on my views on sustainability, which is very much more than the IPCC gravy trainers are prepared to do.



There is nothing preventing sustainability running hand in glove with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, it is a simple extension of the sustainability case.  This is exemplified by some Pacific Ocean islands where traditional crop lands are now being regularly inundated by sea water.



> I am at peace with the world... 'cept for those religious AGW zealots who should be locked up for fraud.



As your previous paragraph acknowledges, the final arbiter has not spoken.  
It remains to be seen who are the real lunatics, so in the interim *you *might want to find a good lawyer.


----------



## wayneL (4 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> It would have been useful for you to defend your statements. However, my original assessment of your capacity to argue a case is validated.



Yes, the truth is I don't have the time or energy to go over it all again. As stated, I'm happy for others to do a better job.



> It really is not a matter of "collating" the science, but of understanding it.  This is a big ticket item and it is unfortunate that so many sink into the gutter rather than try to come to grips with its essential theme.



It is the warmists who tread this path more than anyone. Once the science is challenged, the primary tactic is credibility assasination... because their science just doesn't stack up under close scrutiny. 

I understand the science as much as the next guy, but to present a case on this forum requires collating the relevant information and putting it together in a way that makes sense. It's probably at least eight hours work which would not be appreciated by the target audience... probably a waste of time as religious zealots just filter it out and/or attack the messenger.

I don't mind a bit of Internet argy bargy, but like I said, there are more enjoyable things to do with my time than spend hours going over old ground adequately covered elsewhere.



> There is nothing preventing sustainability running hand in glove with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, it is a simple extension of the sustainability case.



Of course there are many really good reasons to reduce fossil fuel use. It is a polluter and we're using it all up at an alarming rate. I just think that co2 is minor amongst those reasons



> is exemplified by some Pacific Ocean islands where traditional crop lands are now being regularly inundated by sea water.



Sorry, but your credibility just took a six sigma nosedive into the abyss of junk science. Ferchrissake would you look outside of GW propaganda and examine the true reasons for those problems. It's nothing to do with sea level rise. DYOR 


> As your previous paragraph acknowledges, the final arbiter has not spoken.
> It remains to be seen who are the real lunatics, so in the interim *you *might want to find a good lawyer.




If I ever need a lawyer, it will only be because of a vexatious claim. Actually I won't. My assets are well protected. Why pay a lawyer to protect what nobody can get? 

If it is about actions (not words) on the environment front, it is likely to be people like Gore, Hansen, Mann et al... perhaps even yourself, who might need a lawyer. That is the point of the thread.


----------



## sneak'n (4 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> It is the warmists who tread this path more than anyone.



I can see this evidence where?



> Once the science is challenged, the primary tactic is credibility assasination... because their science just doesn't stack up under close scrutiny.



Where the science is concerned, it stacks up.
Judging from your efforts, the opposite would seem a more likely outcome.



> I understand the science as much as the next guy, but to present a case on this forum requires collating the relevant information and putting it together in a way that makes sense. It's probably at least eight hours work which would not be appreciated by the target audience... probably a waste of time as religious zealots just filter it out and/or attack the messenger.



If you understand the science as much as you say, it should take very little effort to state why the IPPC is likely to be wrong.  The principal scientific constructs are straightforward, while the empirical evidence is abundant.



> Of course there are many really good reasons to reduce fossil fuel use. It is a polluter and we're using it all up at an alarming rate. I just think that co2 is minor amongst those reasons



That view would therefore also discount concerns about ocean acidification.  

I would have preferred you stated from the outset that you found justifying your positions too much effort.  Thus far about all I can agree with you on is the need for a more holistic approach to managing the earth's resources and its effluent.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> There is nothing preventing sustainability running hand in glove with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, it is a simple extension of the sustainability case.



"Sustainability" certainly, no real conflict there. But I'll guarantee you right now that those who promote "conservation", which is a very different thing to "sustainability", will be up in arms in a big way if we ever do get serious about reducing CO2 emissions.


----------



## Julia (4 February 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> But I'll guarantee you right now that those who promote "conservation", which is a very different thing to "sustainability", will be up in arms in a big way if we ever do get serious about reducing CO2 emissions.



I must be missing something here.  Why would they be up in arms about reducing CO2 emissions, Smurf?


----------



## Timmy (5 February 2010)

Joe Blow said:


> Please do not infringe the copyright of others on ASF.
> 
> I see a lot of people reproducing whole articles and/or not posting a link to or identifying the original source of quoted material.
> 
> ...




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10373&highlight=copyright


----------



## GumbyLearner (5 February 2010)

Purple XS2 said:


> Nuttiest. Thread. Ever.
> 
> GG, you've set the bar higher (lower ..? further ...?) than I could have imagined. I'm stunned with an amazement bordering on stupefication(sic)
> 
> ...




What about you easily led? Use some rational logic Purple pls.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 February 2010)

Julia said:


> I must be missing something here.  Why would they be up in arms about reducing CO2 emissions, Smurf?



It's the means of achieving it they won't like. With the technology and overall economic paradigm we have today, it basically comes down to two options if we're going to achieve meaningful CO2 cuts quickly.

1. Nuclear. Convert as much energy use as possible to electricity and embark on a crash course in nuclear plant construction. Plus we'll need more transmission lines etc too.

2. Renewable. Again switch energy use primarily to electricity. But this time build vast numbers of wind farms (primarily in coastal regions in the Australian context) whilst also getting all we can from biomass (think scaled up agriculture, land clearing and so on) and a bit from hydro (the debate that literally started the Greens).

It all comes down to what is practical. Solar, wave, tidal, geothermal, thorium reactors etc all sound very nice and they do fix the CO2 issue. But they're not ready for large scale use yet and won't be for years to come - if we're going to do it now then we're stuck with the established non-fossil energy sources (nuclear, hydro, biomass) plus wind. Everything else just doesn't stack up either technically or economically beyond small scale niche applications.

Now think about what this means in the Australian context. Either we're going nuclear in a very big way or we're about to dot the coast with wind turbines, burn everything we can grow and dam everything we can dam. I can't see conservationists being overly happy with either scenario.

Personally, I very much accept that we need to go to renewables and/or thorium in the long term. But given the _environmental_ consequences, deciding to rush ahead with phasing out fossil fuels isn't a decision to be taken lightly. 

Acting "just in case" is a bit like turning the fire sprinkers in a building on "just in case". Sure, you've eliminated any reasonable chance of a fire, but you've caused a lot of other damage in doing so. Same goes with the CO2 issue.

Thinking back to the environmental debates surrounding energy over the past 4 decades in Australia, basically all of them came down to conservation in the traditional sense versus CO2. Save the rivers, keep city air clean, don't risk nukes, save the birds and so on - ALL of them at the direct cost of higher CO2 emissions in order to deliver some other environmental benefit. Until very recently, conservationists have _always_ been on the side arguing _against_ things which would have reduced CO2 emissions from the energy industry be it in NSW, Qld, Vic, WA, SA and of course Tasmania. 

That's a very consistent pattern over the years. Against nuclear. Against hydro (not just in Tas). Against gas. Against wind. That leaves coal as the default option and one of the reasons we're so reliant on it now is as a direct consequence of these past debates.


----------



## Duckman#72 (5 February 2010)

Julia said:


> I'd not heard Lord Monckton speak so was interested in the item about his speech in Sydney featured in the 7.30 Report this evening.
> 
> He may well be very knowledgeable and an authority on climate change.
> 
> Left me completely cold.




You might like to read Andrew Bolt's Blog regarding Moncktons treatment by the 7:30 Report. Provides a different slant Julia.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...comments/how_the_730_report_nobbled_monckton/

Duckman


----------



## wayneL (5 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> I can see this evidence where?



Just one example from thousands below with thanks to Duckman. 


Duckman#72 said:


> You might like to read Andrew Bolt's Blog regarding Moncktons treatment by the 7:30 Report. Provides a different slant Julia.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...comments/how_the_730_report_nobbled_monckton/
> 
> Duckman


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 February 2010)

The UK Guardian, a very left wing newspaper, is now spruiking that the University of East Anglia's dodgy data Conspiracy against Science was exposed by big business, and not by Scientist hackers.

How low can these godbotherers stoop. It makes the Crusades and the Reformation seem like a dignified tea party.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacker-police-investigation

I'd bet my Bentley to a Pious that the Guardian will run with this drivel.

gg


----------



## Tink (5 February 2010)

LOL @ Andrew Bolt

from one extreme to the other.


----------



## sneak'n (5 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> Just one example from thousands below with thanks to Duckman.



You specifically stated "It is the warmists who tread this path more than anyone", while the article in question actually does the opposite of what you suggest.  Bolt could have added that Monckton is not a climate scientist and, perhaps, have stated the leading role he (Bolt) has played amongst Australia's journalists in prosecuting the case against IPCC findings.
Thus, I score that as one point to me, nil to you.
Next.


----------



## Duckman#72 (5 February 2010)

Tink said:


> LOL @ Andrew Bolt
> 
> from one extreme to the other.




You can laugh if you like Tink, but please, play the ball and not the man.

Actually read the article. If you don't get caught up in his overblown language, he makes some very valid points. 

The agenda was not to give Monckton a forum to air his views, but to publicly discredit him in the eyes of viewers. The ABC's work has been done.

Look at Julia's response to seeing Moncktons story on the 7:30 Report. I'm not suggesting in any way that Julia would definitely think differently of Monckton if the report had been presented in another way. However Julia's response, is exactly the response that Bolt felt the ABC wanted the intended outcome to be.

Duckman


----------



## Julia (5 February 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's the means of achieving it they won't like. With the technology and overall economic paradigm we have today, it basically comes down to two options if we're going to achieve meaningful CO2 cuts quickly.
> 
> 1. Nuclear. Convert as much energy use as possible to electricity and embark on a crash course in nuclear plant construction. Plus we'll need more transmission lines etc too.
> 
> ...



Many thanks, Smurf, for - as always - a succinct and helpful explanation.
Now understand what you mean about the environmentalists.





Duckman#72 said:


> You might like to read Andrew Bolt's Blog regarding Moncktons treatment by the 7:30 Report. Provides a different slant Julia.
> 
> Duckman






Duckman#72 said:


> You can laugh if you like Tink, but please, play the ball and not the man.
> 
> Actually read the article. If you don't get caught up in his overblown language, he makes some very valid points.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link, Duckman.  I've read Andrew Bolt's comments.
He is, of course, absolutely correct about the ABC's bias and about the condescending tone taken by the interviewer.

I think I've made enough comments in the past about Kerry O'Brien's bias to be clear that I wasn't vulnerable to being taken in by the general tenor of the segment.  What I said about Lord Monckton - and I acknowledged that I'd not heard him speak before - was that he left me cold.

That stands, and was based on his general demeanour which I found to be very self important, and somehow less than serious.   If that's unfair, then I offer my apologies to Lord Monckton.  It is, however, simply correct to point out that he is primarily a mathematician and a classics scholar.  His past political appointment doesn't seem any more relevant to me than the current political affiliations of many involved in the present debate:  i.e. they all have a political agenda imo.

From Andrew Bolt's blog:



> Fifth, despite this being purportedly a report on Monckton and his views, it’s in fact Monckton’s critics who get most air time. The three warmists get to say 412 words (not including those of the reporter or of IPPC chairman Rajendra Pachauri); Monckton himself is permitted 401.
> 
> Sixth, while Monckton’s motives and funding were questioned, his critics’ were not, allowing them to falsely present themselves as disinterested. Yet Connor’s institute, for instance, depends on the warming scare for almost all its donations from green sympathisers. Sackett has conceded her appointment by the Rudd Government was a political one.




Quite true, of course.

So, all I'm trying to do is retain some objectivity about this whole debate.
I found Lord Monckton to be personally unappealing to me.  That's all.
He may be the bearer of the ultimate truth.  I don't know.

What I do find interesting is post Copenhagen the gradual and quite subtle backdown by the warmist scientists and followers that the science is absolute, definite and unequivocal.  Now they are all emphasising how much they actually don't know.  So maybe we are getting closer to some honesty.
But maybe not.


----------



## Duckman#72 (5 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> You specifically stated "It is the warmists who tread this path more than anyone", while the article in question actually does the opposite of what you suggest.  Bolt could have added that Monckton is not a climate scientist and, perhaps, have stated the leading role he (Bolt) has played amongst Australia's journalists in prosecuting the case against IPCC findings.
> Thus, I score that as one point to me, nil to you.
> Next.




Hi Sneak'n 

What comes first the chicken or the egg? Bolt's article was in response to the ABC's dismissal of Monckton's views and credibility. I'm sure that was Wayne's point. Bolt only responded to the ABC story.

Who has the potential to be more influential - The 7:30 Report, broadcast into every home in Australia in prime time, or Andrew Bolt's internet blog?

I think the 7:30 Report has been an excellent example of Wayne's point.

Duckman


----------



## Trembling Hand (5 February 2010)

Julia said:


> That stands, and was based on his general demeanour which I found to be very self important, and somehow less than serious.   If that's unfair, then I offer my apologies to Lord Monckton.  It is, however, simply correct to point out that he is primarily a mathematician and a classics scholar.
> So, all I'm trying to do is retain some objectivity about this whole debate.
> I found Lord Monckton to be personally unappealing to me.  That's all.
> He may be the bearer of the ultimate truth.  I don't know.




Julia did you listen to his stuff in that link on counterpoint I posted above. Yes he is a mathematician. but who better to take the scientist data and run a test on it?

Have a listen, there is some stuff in there that sounds wacky but there is also some very interesting points about the scientist data.


----------



## Duckman#72 (5 February 2010)

Julia said:


> That stands, and was based on his general demeanour which I found to be very self important, and somehow less than serious.   If that's unfair, then I offer my apologies to Lord Monckton.  It is, however, simply correct to point out that he is primarily a mathematician and a classics scholar.  His past political appointment doesn't seem any more relevant to me than the current political affiliations of many involved in the present debate:  i.e. they all have a political agenda imo.
> 
> So, all I'm trying to do is retain some objectivity about this whole debate.
> I found Lord Monckton to be personally unappealing to me.  That's all.
> He may be the bearer of the ultimate truth.  I don't know.




Good points Julia. Sorry if I sounded like I was talking on your behalf or cornering you into a position. 

I just found your response very relevant to Bolt's blog.

Duckman


----------



## wayneL (5 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> You specifically stated "It is the warmists who tread this path more than anyone", while the article in question actually does the opposite of what you suggest.  Bolt could have added that Monckton is not a climate scientist and, perhaps, have stated the leading role he (Bolt) has played amongst Australia's journalists in prosecuting the case against IPCC findings.
> Thus, I score that as one point to me, nil to you.
> Next.



If it is important for your happiness to have scored a point against me, I won't challenge it.


----------



## noirua (5 February 2010)

3rd Viscount Christopher W Monckton of Brenchley is a good speaker and sounds good in radio broadcasts. 
He has a past record of sudden change of views as he did on the AIDS epidemic when he talked about his plans to quarantine everyone with aids. Many years later in his usual joyful tones he said, this is of course not now possible because of the numbers.

Numbers are the main factors here on climate change as coal fired power-stations are being built at a rate above 70 a year. A race for growth of economies has massively outpaced the new technology advances and it is time now for coal and oil to pay more for technology advances.

There is a tariff of 20c per tonne paid voluntarily by some coal companies that is used to advance new technology at places like Cessnock. This needs to become compulsory and be raised to at least A$2 per tonne.

New greener technology must be given the chance to advance more quickly and coal and oil must pay for it.


----------



## sneak'n (5 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> The agenda was not to give Monckton a forum to air his views, but to publicly discredit him in the eyes of viewers. The ABC's work has been done.
> Duckman



It is difficult to discredit one if one has a sustainable position.
It is also a matter of opinion as to what the ABC's motives were in putting Monckton to air.
I note that Bolt uses some choice words and phrases, such as statistical trickery, to malign some climate change advocates, but does not render the same burden on Monckton.
Monckton agrees there has been warming for the past 300 years, so there is a sense he does not deny warming.  He forgot to mention that 300 years ago the Maunder Minimum was our climatic norm, so warming since then was a reasonably certain outcome.
Monckton's claim on sea ice is equally mischievous.  North and South Polar regions are also opposites in that one is mostly land and the other sea, overlain with snow and ice.  The data clearly shows northern sea ice areas to be contracting markedly, in tandem with ice thickness.  This is not  the case in the Antarctic, for reasons which are complex.  To use total ice area rather than explain the marked differences at each Pole is plain and simple statistical trickery.
I admit to not seeing the ABC interview, but Monckton may have been saved from needing to justify his earlier calculations on warming that serve only to prove how poorly he understands the science.


----------



## sneak'n (5 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> If it is important for your happiness to have scored a point against me, I won't challenge it.



You are gracious.
I do regret your continued lack of desire or ability to sustain the assertion that led me into this forum.  
So if you and Mr Gumnut want to prosecute climate change advocates you will need a stronger base than available here.


----------



## spooly74 (5 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> The data clearly shows northern sea ice areas to be contracting markedly, in tandem with ice thickness.




Reference for the ice thickness?

Also, the graph below shows that sea ice not contracting at all.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 February 2010)

noirua said:


> He has a past record of sudden change of views...



Such is the beauty of humans. Knowing when wrong to change opinion or realisation that there is another or others.


----------



## Julia (5 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Julia did you listen to his stuff in that link on counterpoint I posted above. Yes he is a mathematician. but who better to take the scientist data and run a test on it?
> 
> Have a listen, there is some stuff in there that sounds wacky but there is also some very interesting points about the scientist data.



Thanks for the link.  I usually try to hear "Counterpoint" which at least provides a small degree of balance to the Left bias of the ABC, but missed this.

I've read the transcript and agree Lord Monckton makes what seem like really good points.

I've never been convinced about any changes in climate being anthropogenic, but I'm simply trying to qualify that response in myself with some level of objectivity.  If anyone wants to check back in other threads, I've been a strong objector to the instituting of an ETS which - at least in the absence of a global agreement - would seem more likely to significantly damage our economy than make any difference to climate.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 February 2010)

Julia said:


> I've read the transcript and agree Lord Monckton makes what seem like really good points.
> 
> I've never been convinced about any changes in climate being anthropogenic, but I'm simply trying to qualify that response in myself with some level of objectivity.  If anyone wants to check back in other threads, I've been a strong objector to the instituting of an ETS which - at least in the absence of a global agreement - would seem more likely to significantly damage our economy than make any difference to climate.



Yes, focussing on the content and not the personality goes far. 

The rest of the solar system is experiencing similar changes.


----------



## Happy (5 February 2010)

Julia said:


> ...
> I've been a strong objector to the instituting of an ETS which - at least in the absence of a global agreement - would seem more likely to significantly damage our economy than make any difference to climate.





That’s my maths too:

If we contribute 2% to global warming, even if we reduce by 50% it still leaves 99% to take care of, if nobody else does their bit.

As Julia said at what cost to our economy?

Taking into account that developing economies will be exempt our reduction might be gracefully absorbed even exceeded.


----------



## sneak'n (5 February 2010)

spooly74 said:


> Reference for the ice thickness?



http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.html



> Also, the graph below shows that sea ice not contracting at all.



Was there a reason you chose the Monckton approach?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Sea ice anomalies (30 year averaged) only correct towards a positive value during the antarctic winters nowadays.
The trend for Arctic sea ice is dire.


----------



## brty (5 February 2010)

Sneak'n,

That is a lovely graphic, it goes up and down over the 31 year period. If we compare total sea ice right now to 30 years ago we see what??

 What a surprise!!! It is EXACTLY the same now.

brty


----------



## IFocus (5 February 2010)

noirua said:


> 3rd Viscount Christopher W Monckton of Brenchley is a good speaker and sounds good in radio broadcasts.
> He has a past record of sudden change of views as he did on the AIDS epidemic when he talked about his plans to quarantine everyone with aids. Many years later in his usual joyful tones he said, this is of course not now possible because of the numbers.
> 
> Numbers are the main factors here on climate change as coal fired power-stations are being built at a rate above 70 a year. A race for growth of economies has massively outpaced the new technology advances and it is time now for coal and oil to pay more for technology advances.
> ...





Good points Noirua could'nt agree more.


As for Bolt watched him on the outsiders get pulled up by the other guess  jurno's as he sprouted the anti CC lie they pointed out that he was paid or sponsored by anti CC lobbyists. Credibility?
His right wing bias is also an embarrassment when he seeks to establish arguments.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 February 2010)

I don't want you warmists to get too upset, but Pluto is undergoing weather change. Quite more rapidly than anticipated.

Explain that!

http://www.bigpondnews.com/articles...lescope_sees_Pluto_changing_color_425194.html

gg


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 February 2010)

Happy said:


> That’s my maths too:
> 
> If we contribute 2% to global warming, even if we reduce by 50% it still leaves 99% to take care of, if nobody else does their bit.
> 
> ...



If you look at what actually changed after Kyoto then it was simply this. Previously we went about getting coal, oil and gas out of the ground at an ever increasing pace. Then as Kyoto deadlines approached, we simply maximised the rate of increase in getting fossil fuel out of the ground - we burnt like we've never burnt before.

Regardless of what politicians say, global fuel use has continued to rise despite all talk about CO2. The only thing that actually reduced emissions was the GFC, and that effect seems to be fading. 

Australia sure can't be the only country with rising emissions when you realise there's a boom in fossil fuels globally. Someone somewhere might have cut a bit, but as a whole we're emitting more than ever and that trend seems certain to continue.

Looking back at the past century, there's really only a few things that ever did dent fossil fuel use: Great Depression, the World Wars, 1973 oil embargo, the boom in use of nuclear power in the early 1980's, and the 2008 financial crisis. But the trend always remained up and that trend is still very much intact.


----------



## IFocus (5 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> Good points Noirua could'nt agree more.
> 
> 
> As for Bolt watched him on the outsiders get pulled up by the other guess  jurno's as he sprouted the anti CC *line* they pointed out that he was paid or sponsored by anti CC lobbyists. Credibility?
> His right wing bias is also an embarrassment when he seeks to establish arguments.




left the "n" out previous post


----------



## sneak'n (5 February 2010)

brty said:


> That is a lovely graphic, it goes up and down over the 31 year period. If we compare total sea ice right now to 30 years ago we see what??
> What a surprise!!! It is EXACTLY the same now.
> brty



Actually the anomaly shows a decrease of about one million square kilometres or, about 6% less ice now than on average.
Mr Gumnut, please banish this parishioner of yours to a favourable clime and practise him in maths.


----------



## Tink (6 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> ..............
> 
> 
> As for Bolt watched him on the outsiders get pulled up by the other guess  jurno's as he sprouted the anti CC line they pointed out that he was paid or sponsored by anti CC lobbyists. Credibility?
> ...




Yep, spot on.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 February 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I don't want you warmists to get too upset, but Pluto is undergoing weather change. Quite more rapidly than anticipated.
> 
> Explain that!
> 
> ...




Is Climate Change on Pluto man made?

A lambian silence.

Is Climate Change on earth man made, every refugee from the old left has an opinion that it is.

http://www.bigpondnews.com/articles...lescope_sees_Pluto_changing_color_425194.html

Remain sceptical, very sceptical.

gg


----------



## wayneL (6 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> Good points Noirua could'nt agree more.
> 
> 
> As for Bolt watched him on the outsiders get pulled up by the other guess  jurno's as he sprouted the anti CC lie they pointed out that he was paid or sponsored by anti CC lobbyists. Credibility?
> His right wing bias is also an embarrassment when he seeks to establish arguments.




If right wing bias embarrassing:

Is left wing bias also embarrassing?

Is it embarrassing to the left wing or the right wing?

Is left wing bias embarrassing to the left wing or the right wing?

Are both biases embarrassing to the centre?

Is it only embarrassing if you disagree?

We all know Bolt is right wing. But we also know who is left wing too.

I'd really like to know if cognitive biases such as those above and attitude polarization is just all round embarrassing e or just selectively embarrassing. I'd also like to know if hypocrisy exposed is embarrassing.

Embarrassingly yours....


----------



## SmellyTerror (6 February 2010)

I point out that the science has not a thing to do with the surrounding political bull****. The response is absolutely pure 100% undiluted COMEDY GOLD.



> I find that statement quite insulting SmellyTerrier.
> 
> You see the problem with your presumptions for solutions is that you don't understand Marx.




Oh.
My.
GOD.

There's no arguing with you lot, is there?

*I've posted a link that shows what a fraud and liar Monckton is* - does anyone make the slightest effort to respond, to refute? Nope. Just wave his name around and you'll be right.

You know he claimed to Congress that he was a member of the House of Lords, right? And that he's NOT, right? Quite apart from his many failings towards the science (see link earlier in thread), he's full of ****. Do you think someone accidentally forgets whether or not he's in the HOUSE OF LORDS?

Yep, with Monckton I'm willing to go ad hom. Even though I don't need to (again, see link earlier).

*I've posted the sheer stupidity of believing in a conpsiracy so vast*, but does anyone bother to justify themselves? Nope. Just say the impossible is true and it will be true.

*I've attacked every substantive argument that Wayne has put up* (precious few though they are) and he doesn't even seem to have read my posts, let alone tried to answer them. Are you guys after a discussion, or a self-congratulatory circle-jerk?

You guys don't understand the science, and have made absolutely no attempt to show you do. Many freely admit they don't, which is fine. But in that case *WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO DO UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE*? Not me - the scientists of planet earth.

It just seems to me that, to believe that somehow virtually the entire community of scientists are liars, frauds and idiots, while you, Forum Reader Extraordinaire, know more than these people with decades of training and experience and the best equipment known to man, and know more than virtually every government on earth, is simply hubris beyond measure.

Look at Rudd. Look at the little sleaze trying DESPERATELY to look like he's doing something about climate change, while doing as little as he can possibly get away with. Look at most of the governments on earth doing the same. And then getting the crap kicked out of them electorally whenever they do a damn thing, since anything effectual will be painful for their voters.

Do you seriously think that if ANY of them had evidence that all of this was a crock that they'd hold back for a SECOND? 

TERRIBLE news everyone - everything's fine! PROSPERITY FOR EVERYONE!

Piss off. Governments have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this - just as the scientific community had to be. Remember, AGW was once the fringe theory, that had to do the hard yards over a period of decades to be reluctantly accepted by these scientists you now accuse of being liars and frauds.

You don't need to know a thing about the science to see this conspiracy theory is nonsense. No-one has made the slightest effort to show how it makes any sense at all. I can't see that most of the "sceptics" are arguing in any good faith at all.

So I'm done arguing with you. Go on believing your little theory (which by _amazing coincidence _makes _you_ very smart and worldly and superior to the hoi polloi). The world has moved on.

...not that I get any satisfaction from that, since "moved on" just means "the pollies get to completely screw it up"...

---
Sorry, there was a reference to the science I missed. Fool I am. Briefly out of retirement to post this:



> Sneak'n,
> 
> That is a lovely graphic, it goes up and down over the 31 year period. If we compare total sea ice right now to 30 years ago we see what??
> 
> ...




This is a good example of forum science. Yeah, EXACTLY the same.

... http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

The first low on the chart for Daily Area (blue line) is a touch under 17. The present low is at 15. So you think 2 million square kilometers less is no difference at all, do you?

The first maximum was around 22. The last maximum was 21. So you think 1 million square kilometers of difference is no difference at all, do you?

Draw a line along the 22 mark, and the 15 mark. Note how many times 22 is breached in the first half of the time period, and how many times in the second half. Note how many times the minimums come anywhere near 15 int he fist half, and how many times it comes close or even crosses it in the second half. Look at the anomaly directions (red line at bottom).

Exactly the same, is it?

Climate IS complicated. It varies to a huge degree. This is accepted. But a very large number of very smart people with a huge amount of experience already know that. They allow for that. And they are telling you something that you still refuse to accept because you are confused by noise. You might as well use a cold day in January to disprove summer.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE. You don't come close.


----------



## sneak'n (6 February 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Is Climate Change on Pluto man made?
> 
> A lambian silence.
> 
> ...



Mr Gumnut
Why not quote the science?
Almost 250 years to orbit the sun.
Gets closer to the sun than Neptune.
Seasons that last over 100 years.
Its climate destined by its very place in the universe.
Not a man on the horizon.

Climate, of course, is not of itself man made.
But can we discount man's influence completely?
Remain skeptical, very skeptical.


----------



## Trembling Hand (6 February 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> IThere's no arguing with you lot, is there?
> 
> *I've posted a link that shows what a fraud and liar Monckton is* - does anyone make the slightest effort to respond, to refute? Nope. Just wave his name around and you'll be right.




Sorry Smelly between all the emotion and name calling I cannot seem to find that link on fraud and liar Monckton.


----------



## sneak'n (6 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> I'd really like to know if cognitive biases such as those above and attitude polarization is just all round embarrassing e or just selectively embarrassing. I'd also like to know if hypocrisy exposed is embarrassing.
> 
> Embarrassingly yours....



Is it embarrassing to make statements one is unwilling to defend, or to suggest one understands something, but it's really too much trouble to explain?
Is it a cognitive bias to make a statement that is abundantly defensible?
Is attitude polarisation an excuse for people who are unable to comprehend an alternative?  
Who are the hypocrites?


----------



## lukeaye (6 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> Beyond a few vested interests and those zealots who have embraced it as a religion, co2 based AGW is a dead issue, the science largely discredited, the proponents caught out BSing and humiliated.
> 
> Let's now concentrate on minimizing man's impact on the environment in a number of other ways that are real, measurable and doable.
> 
> ...




100% agree with that comment. That pretty much sums it up.

I read a few books on the "greenhouse effect" about 8 years ago, they had the evidence back then to disprove it. Never been on this bandwagon and have copped alot for it. 

But i agree with you wayne, we are not doing our planet any favours with the way we treat it.


----------



## SmellyTerror (6 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Sorry Smelly between all the emotion and name calling I cannot seem to find that link on fraud and liar Monckton.






> ...and now you're quoting Monckton as a reliable source??? Dear GOD, people!
> 
> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/glob...ming/monckton/




Form post #94, which is, I think, a good one. Links to explanations of the science, but also a discussion of why understanding the particulars of the science isn't really necessary to see that the conspiracy is dumb.


----------



## IFocus (6 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> If right wing bias embarrassing:
> 
> Is left wing bias also embarrassing?
> 
> ...




My own politics is some where left of the commie party hugging trees. 

So clearly being a normal person I have no bias 

But seriously I have plenty of respect for a great many on the right side of politics and their commentary even if I don't agree. 

And yep plenty on the left that make me cringe. Not all can be perfect like us.

Unlike my opinion about youself of Andrew I am definitely not an admirer


----------



## Trembling Hand (6 February 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Form post #94, which is, I think, a good one. Links to explanations of the science, but also a discussion of why understanding the particulars of the science isn't really necessary to see that the conspiracy is dumb.




That links broken. But I have found plenty on http://scienceblogs.com about Monkckton. Will peruse it at my leisure lata as there seems to be a mountain of posts about him.
The circles this argument takes one on!!

Oh I wish we could go back to the good old days when the Church just told us all what to believe. :


----------



## SmellyTerror (6 February 2010)

Sorry, link works for me... oh! Sorry, copy-pasted the abbreviation instead of the full link. Here 'tis.

Scienceblogs is interesting: fun to read because they're opinionated cocks, but they link absolutely everything, so you can dig back to the documents they're talking about. 

Angry scientists: biased, of course, but they compulsively log their bias to you can check.


----------



## Julia (6 February 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> You know he claimed to Congress that he was a member of the House of Lords, right?



Any reference I've heard to him in this respect, including his own words, has clearly been that he is an hereditary peer, not that he sits in the House of Lords at all.



> YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE. You don't come close.



Since you clearly do, would you be generous enough to post a link which will clearly explain to all of us who do not understand the science that climate change is caused by human behaviour and will therefore be ameliorated by the reversing of that human behaviour.
Thank you very much.





IFocus said:


> My own politics is some where left of the commie party hugging trees.
> 
> So clearly being a normal person I have no bias
> 
> ...



Refreshing to see some objective thinking.




SmellyTerror said:


> Sorry, link works for me... oh! Sorry, copy-pasted the abbreviation instead of the full link. Here 'tis.



Thank you for that link.  I looked at it, plus some of the references.
Seems to me to be just another blog by someone with a sarcastic turn of phrase.   Hardly the sort of authoritative message which I'd take any more seriously than the rhetoric of the right.


----------



## sneak'n (6 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Since you clearly do, would you be generous enough to post a link which will clearly explain to all of us who do not understand the science that climate change is caused by human behaviour and will therefore be ameliorated by the reversing of that human behaviour.
> Thank you very much.



There is a bit to read, for those who want to see how the IPCC reaches its position:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf


----------



## SmellyTerror (6 February 2010)

> Since you clearly do, would you be generous enough to post a link which will clearly explain to all of us who do not understand the science that climate change is caused by human behaviour and will therefore be ameliorated by the reversing of that human behaviour.




Wasn't directed at you, since I don't think you've claimed that you did understand the science. I also say that I'm NOT the person to explain it ("Not me - the scientists of planet earth.").  

But yeah, see Sneak above. Half the point of the scientific method is that others can follow exactly how you come to your conclusions. It's all on the public record.

...and if it does get more complicated than the lay person is going to be able to understand, then I go back to my point: why not listen to the people who do understand? On what basis do you doubt them, if you don't understand?



> Any reference I've heard to him in this respect, including his own words, has clearly been that he is an hereditary peer, not that he sits in the House of Lords at all.




Here y'are. On the public record.

From that one: _Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you have written or resign your sinecures._

Or how about this one where he claims to have a Nobel prize.

From that second link, Monckton in the third person: _His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate._

These are open letters.



> Seems to me to be just another blog by someone with a sarcastic turn of phrase. Hardly the sort of authoritative message which I'd take any more seriously than the rhetoric of the right.




Might have missed the point: it's snarky, but there are links to every statement, so you can go back and see what they're commenting on. Such as both of the links I just provided.

---
PS: sorry for being an offensive ass, btw. I painted with too broad a brush, and it was posts like yours that made me bother to put up my last couple of points. It was other posters I was thinking of in my crankiness, not everyone on the skeptic side.

If I thought no-one at all was thinking critically then I wouldn't have bothered posting in the first place.

Sorry for implying otherwise.


----------



## wayneL (6 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> Is it embarrassing to make statements one is unwilling to defend, or to suggest one understands something, but it's really too much trouble to explain?
> Is it a cognitive bias to make a statement that is abundantly defensible?
> Is attitude polarisation an excuse for people who are unable to comprehend an alternative?
> Who are the hypocrites?




Clearly, after all that has been said, sneak'n has issues with wayneL.

I don't know whether I should be embarrassed, or edified. Being humble, I'm going with the current them of embarrassment... just because I am subject the the cognitive bias of "social proof". It's the current theme .

But, for the record, the defence of my statements resides in the narrative of credible scepticism. There is no requirement for me to regurgitate what has been written elsewhere. One is either open to both sides of the debate or not. I think I have been open to both sides as my view has evolved over time, taking in points from wherever I feel they are valid.

Re cognitive bias - I am human, subject to cognitive bias, but so are you. Everybody is biased. Denial of such is the height of stupidity, no matter what the person's purported IQ. Therefore I can categorically state that yes I am a hypocrite. Equally, I can confidently accuse you of the identical shortcomings and be assured of being 100% correct.

But the current momentum of evidence has been a "king hit" to the Warm Monger's position. Warmist "science" is in deep doo-doo, irretrievable from the abyss of discredited junk science. Fancy language and argumentive fallacy cannot change this simple empirical truth. Warmist climate science is in a state of overriding failure. Only the faithful remain, just like the American style fundamental Christianity remains faithful to the absurdity of young earth creationism. An article of faith rather than scientific method.

On can never accuse me of attitude polarisation as I sit right in the middle of the two extreme positions. I argue with the the preposterous assertions of the warmist extremist hypothesis with regards to co2; equally I argue with the outright proposition that our earth can sustain current levels of consumption. I regard both positions as untenable.

I am not a proponent of "_wenn alles gut geht_", yet I am selected as a target for attack by the likes of zealots such as yourself. This is instructive for the dispassionate observer... as well as those on the receiving end of illogical invective. 

It is interesting that zealots select the middle position for particular ad hominem attack, more so than unscientific denialists (of which there are very few). Like any church, they choose to defend the status quo and current power base from within, over the overriding search for truth. 

The motivation is self evident, yet unstated.

Hypocrite? Yes, i am a member of that club - we all are. But there are degrees of of hypocrisy. The absurdly highest level resides with the warm mongers, because their solution is for others to bear, rather than themselves.

There is no better example of this than one Nobel Laureate who lives in Tennessee, whose award single handedly destroyed (well, with the help of the most recent travesty of awarding Obarmy the peace prize as well) the credibility of the whole award process, now hopelessly politicized. 

Basically, any attacks from you and your ilk come from a very shaky premise and a position of gross hypocrisy, with agreemnet only from the "disciples of Gore". As such, I disregard your sleights as preposterous, ludicrous, ridiculous, unscientific, puerile, disingenuous (choose your own pejorative adjective)  etc.

Ergo, I am totally at ease with my views and conduct. Apart from the pull of social proof (which I have battled off successfully for the most part), I have no compunction over my position on co2 based global warming.

However, you should.


----------



## sneak'n (6 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> Basically, any attacks from you and your ilk come from a very shaky premise and a position of gross hypocrisy, with agreemnet only from the "disciples of Gore". As such, I disregard your sleights as preposterous, ludicrous, ridiculous, unscientific, puerile, disingenuous (choose your own pejorative adjective)  etc.



There is a marked difference between "attacks" and repeated requests that you substantiate your case.  This you refuse to do in this thread; and repeatedly.
I am concerned that you spend much effort on posts in reply that are quite off topic.  Yet you say you understand the science.  So be it.




> Ergo, I am totally at ease with my views and conduct. Apart from the pull of social proof (which I have battled off successfully for the most part), I have no compunction over my position on co2 based global warming.
> 
> However, you should.



I was not aware that there was need for "social proof" as you put it.  And I am curious as to why I would need to regret any position I have have put in this thread.

Whatever contention you make, I am not a zealot, nor a warmist.  You do not do yourself any favours suggesting that I am.  

I do not know what, if any, position you hold in maintaining forum posting standards, but my recollection from reading them when I joined is that you have breached them in replies to me.

Is it possible to engage in discussion with you such that we just keep to the issues?


----------



## Julia (6 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> There is a bit to read, for those who want to see how the IPCC reaches its position:
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf



Thank you.  I appreciate the response.  The 106 pages look somewhat daunting but I'll read it.



SmellyTerror said:


> ...and if it does get more complicated than the lay person is going to be able to understand, then I go back to my point: why not listen to the people who do understand? On what basis do you doubt them, if you don't understand?



I think the difficulty some of us are having is that there seems to also be a clear group of scientists, presumably somewhat qualified to comment, who are disputing the widely accepted views.




> Here y'are. On the public record.
> 
> From that one: _Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you have written or resign your sinecures._



Thank you.  That's pretty clear.  And pretty unacceptable.




> Or how about this one where he claims to have a Nobel prize.
> 
> From that second link, Monckton in the third person: _His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate._



I did hear this discussed on the radio a while ago.  He claimed that "it was all just a joke".  
Perhaps.   But lined up with the above suggestion of being a sitting member of the British House of Lords, it's at the very least not a good look.




> Might have missed the point: it's snarky, but there are links to every statement, so you can go back and see what they're commenting on. Such as both of the links I just provided.



Perhaps I did indeed miss the point.  The links I did follow (certainly not all of them) did appear to be more in the same tone as that of the bloggers.
My problem, I expect, but I do get put off when such a partisan attitude is so obvious.



> PS: sorry for being an offensive ass, btw. I painted with too broad a brush, and it was posts like yours that made me bother to put up my last couple of points. It was other posters I was thinking of in my crankiness, not everyone on the skeptic side.



No problem.  It just seemed to me that the thread had developed into nothing more than a personal slanging match and it's hard to see how this benefits anyone.

If those of you who are completely sure of the warming science display a more accepting attitude toward those of us who - undoubtedly through our ignorance - remain to be persuaded one way or the other, then perhaps the level of ill feeling all round would be diminished.

My own resentment and concern arose from the government's urgency to introduce an ETS that they had failed to explain to the Australian people.
There was something quite unseemly about the haste to have this passed before Copenhagen.  I found it difficult not to ascribe at least some of this to Mr Rudd's personal ambitions on the world stage.

Given Australia's very small contribution to global emissions (and I understand this includes such as bush fires) - alongside Mr Rudd's determination to have a much expanded population -it's difficult not to see some hypocrisy from Mr Rudd.    I have found it difficult to see the value in Australia pursuing such a scheme in the absence of the rest of the world doing likewise.   Particularly in view of the recognised risk of damage to our economy.

Now the government is essentially 'going through the motions' of putting the legislation up again, presumably purely to reinforce their double dissolution trigger.  

And then, although I like the idea of planting trees and encouraging renewable energy etc, I have no idea whether Mr Abbott's scheme has real substance either, or whether he's being his usual populist self and presenting something which sounds simple enough to appeal to the average Australian who has been so put off by the complexity of the government's scheme.

So, if I'm tempted to just shrug my shoulders and consider that I just can't be bothered being interested while they ride out their primary aims to score points off one another, I expect much of the electorate will be feeling similarly.


----------



## sneak'n (6 February 2010)

Julia said:


> I think the difficulty some of us are having is that there seems to also be a clear group of scientists, presumably somewhat qualified to comment, who are disputing the widely accepted views.



In science it is good to have robust debate, and the peer review process remains the foundation stone for this in relation to written works.
It is moot as to whether or not "consensus" is relevant in settling a position, particularly when all we have is a theory that needs many more decades of data before being determined one way or the other.
Despite what we might read about climate change, very little of it focuses on the science relating to our earth's net energy balance.
Instead, there is a media side show that is regularly fed something that seemingly suggests the science is wrong.  More often than not it is a misquote, a crackpot, or just poor checking of the sources.
In the case of general circulation models, which do little more than test the theory and hypothesise future outcomes, there are literally thousands of details that can be criticised, over and above whether or not the model was a valid construct to begin with.
In a fashion those issues/complexities can be put aside as what becomes critical is if we believe or not that radiative forcings for increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions will raise average temperatures into the future.
What, then, does one choose to accept or reject?


----------



## Sidamo (6 February 2010)

Julia said:


> I think the difficulty some of us are having is that there seems to also be a clear group of scientists, presumably somewhat qualified to comment, who are disputing the widely accepted views.




I think a mistake a lot of people make is assuming that *any* scientist is qualified to comment. I'm certainly not suggesting that there's no-one on the anti-GW side who's qualified to comment, but there are a LOT of scientists out there who know nothing about climate science and are not qualified to comment.

If you had a brain tumour, would you ask a gastroenterologist for a second opinion?


----------



## brty (6 February 2010)

Sneak'n, SmellyTerror,



> Actually the anomaly shows a decrease of about one million square kilometres or, about 6% less ice now than on average.




In April 1980 the total sea ice was over 1 million sqkm less than the 30 year average from 1979-2008. Right now the total sea ice is about 1 million sqkm less than the average from 1979-2008, so yes I would say it is exactly the same.

But seeing as you guys want to look in more detail, lets compare April 1980 with April 2008, or maybe April 2009, nah... no point. The statistics are too little, too short in time.

What the graph really shows is that there is no real change over 30 years. If it was a graph of some trading vehicle/contract, you would be a fool to put your money on anything based on it. Basically you would be guessing.

brty


----------



## wayneL (6 February 2010)

Sidamo said:


> I think a mistake a lot of people make is assuming that *any* scientist is qualified to comment. I'm certainly not suggesting that there's no-one on the anti-GW side who's qualified to comment, but there are a LOT of scientists out there who know nothing about climate science and are not qualified to comment.
> 
> If you had a brain tumour, would you ask a gastroenterologist for a second opinion?




Well that counts most of the proGW lobby out then. LOL


----------



## Julia (6 February 2010)

Sidamo said:


> If you had a brain tumour, would you ask a gastroenterologist for a second opinion?



Rather an extreme example, don't you think?
No, I wouldn't consult a gastroenterologist, but I would probably seek a second opinion from a General Specialist Physician, i.e. a doctor who has the capacity to look at the overall physiology without becoming obsessed with one organ.


----------



## sneak'n (6 February 2010)

brty said:


> Sneak'n, SmellyTerror,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Climate science tries, wherever possible, to use 30-year averaged data as it overcomes a range of multi-decadal cyclical anomalies.


----------



## ghotib (7 February 2010)

This link is to a longish article about the IPCC 4th report "glaciers disappearing by 2035" error and to media reporting both before and after it. As a former technical writer and sometime freelance journalist, I found the article an interesting and painfully realistic look at Murphy's law applied to writing about very complicated subjects. 

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/

I think climate science is probably unique in the speed with which cutting edge work gets from specialists to politics. It happens with medical research too, but we've all got some experience with doctors and bodies to work with. Climate is different. Weather is the closest experience most of get to climate. They're different things, but weather records are one of the sources of climate science as it's come to be understood and personally I've had a hard time understanding why and how they differ. If I'd still been in a full-time job when Wayne posted the link to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" I probably wouldn't have been able to get as far as I have. 

A very helpful source for the history of climate science, including the relationship between weather and climate, is Spencer Weart's "History of Global Warming" site http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html There's an awful lot of material there and I keep going back to it. 

One thing I've realised is that nobody started out with a hypothesis that humans were warming the planet. Scientists from many different disciplines were trying to understand climate, and the role of human activities only became apparent as the understanding grew. There's a blog entry from Michael Tobis that crystallised this for me at http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/05/falsifiability-question.html

I don't understand why so much emotion and money is going into trashing the fundamentals of climate science, or why so much of the noise comes from people who manifestly don't know what climate scientists are saying. The experts have been working on this for about 50 years; it's a bit rich to claim that they haven't thought of such obvious issues as the role of the sun or of water vapour, even if they don't know all the answers. 

In this and other threads Smurf has shared his genuine expertise to point out some of the massive and expensive changes that a low- or no- carbon emission civilisation will mean. That's a discussion we can usefully have as electors and citizens. I think we'd better get on with it because it's a very hard - you might even say diabolical - problem. 

Ghoti


----------



## spooly74 (7 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.html
> Was there a reason you chose the Monckton approach?
> 
> The trend for Arctic sea ice is dire.




Monckton approach, wtf is that?

I posted a response to your statement that northern sea ice is contracting markedly. Presumably you meant the Artic regions. The graph I posted shows satellite data since 02 and there has been no significant contraction.
But, in response, you provide an image of global sea ice along with a petty ad hom.

What should we call that approach?


----------



## SmellyTerror (7 February 2010)

> In April 1980 the total sea ice was over 1 million sqkm less than the 30 year average from 1979-2008. Right now the total sea ice is about 1 million sqkm less than the average from 1979-2008, so yes I would say it is exactly the same.
> 
> But seeing as you guys want to look in more detail, lets compare April 1980 with April 2008, or maybe April 2009, nah... no point. The statistics are too little, too short in time.
> 
> ...




http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

So you're looking at a few of the outliers to make your argument? Seriously? Cherry picking is usually a misused term on the intertubes, but this, sir, is cherry picking. It's like looking at a successful trader, picking out some losing trades, and saying that proves he's crap. The whole picture is what matters.

This is a trend in nature. Climate and weather has notoriously noisy data, but this is not trading. There is no-one selling at +2 million. There is no-one buying at -1 million. The trend only changes because something is forcing it to change. Prices aren't going to spring back on a piece good of news.

AGW theory does NOT say there were no hot years in the past, or that there were no mild winters. It says that we can expect more hot summers and mild winters, and that they'll be a bit hotter and a bit more mild respectively (globally anyway: some places are expected to get colder, and extreme weather events of all kinds (including cold) are expected to increase).

And this is what we're seeing. MORE of the lower outliers, FEWER of the high outliers. The low points getting lower on average. The high points getting lower on average. The sea ice change here is especially dramatic given that we've experienced only a small part of what we can expect in the long term (only about 0.3 of a degree in the period shown).

Honestly, if you can't see that the red line is spending more time below the line in the last part than it is the the earlier part, then you're blind. If you can't see that the blue line is touching lower lows and failing to reach old highs*, then I really don't see how there's any arguing with you.

(*Though it might reach them occasionally in future - they'll just reach them far less often).

Julia et al, please do look at that graph in this light. This is data that flim-flam artists like Monckton show as proof that climate change *isn't happening*. He was on tv just yesterday saying "ice is recovering right now" (because it's WINTER, you gigantic wind bag). The figures in the graph are not contested (to the best of my knowledge). Look at the graph in light of the discussion above. Please.

Thank about how much has been made of the errors that mainstream scientists have made (all of which were _corrected_ by mainstream scientists). Now consider how the ice area figures have been misused by the "sceptic" experts. Why do they have to lie and cherry-pick to back up their case?

This is with a change of a piddling 0.3 degrees. This is the sort of thing predicted decades ago, based on AGW theory, by the same people who are saying it's caused by CO2 and that it's not natural and there's more to come. If this isn't vindication (one proxy among MANY that show similar effects), well, I guess you just need to wait.


----------



## Trembling Hand (7 February 2010)

Sidamo said:


> I think a mistake a lot of people make is assuming that *any* scientist is qualified to comment. I'm certainly not suggesting that there's no-one on the anti-GW side who's qualified to comment, but there are a LOT of scientists out there who know nothing about climate science and are not qualified to comment.
> 
> If you had a brain tumour, would you ask a gastroenterologist for a second opinion?




Ha thats funny. There is a know problem in medicine call specialisation bias.

It refers to the fact that a specialist is more likely to see the cause/fix or solution to any problem one that they specialise in whether or not its is the best solution to any problem.

Too funny. Maybe only priests should comment on religion??


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 February 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Look at Rudd. Look at the little sleaze trying DESPERATELY to look like he's doing something about climate change, while doing as little as he can possibly get away with. Look at most of the governments on earth doing the same. And then getting the crap kicked out of them electorally whenever they do a damn thing, since anything effectual will be painful for their voters.
> 
> Do you seriously think that if ANY of them had evidence that all of this was a crock that they'd hold back for a SECOND?
> 
> TERRIBLE news everyone - everything's fine! PROSPERITY FOR EVERYONE!



There are not and never have been any easy options with energy. It's either polluting, too resource intensive (ie expensive) to the point of being largely useless, or it just doesn't work. 

Coal, oil, gas, uranium, hydro, wind, wet geothermal, biomass - they supply virtually all world energy (excluding sunlight outside during the day etc) and they all have problems of one form or another. Likewise solar, tidal etc have more than enough problems too.

Politically, just having problems that voters can't see (CO2) has always been easier than trying to convince them to put up with another set of problems instead. Witness the great debates in Australia and abroad over the past 40 years - the masses almost always favoured fossil fuels over anything else.


----------



## sneak'n (7 February 2010)

spooly74 said:


> Monckton approach, wtf is that?
> 
> I posted a response to your statement that northern sea ice is contracting markedly. Presumably you meant the Artic regions. The graph I posted shows satellite data since 02 and there has been no significant contraction.
> But, in response, you provide an image of global sea ice along with a petty ad hom.
> ...



I provided an explanation of the approaches Monckton takes in mischievously using data.
I also provided a reference on sea ice thickness that you requested.
Long term averaged data is preferential if we are to look at trends and your time series chart was somewhat brief.
However, as you hold to your point, if Arctic sea ice area has barely changed, but the volume has - through reduced ice thickness - would it be reasonable to consider explaining this change?

Let's put the above aside for the moment and look at the latest report from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:


> February 3, 2010
> Despite cool temperatures, ice extent remains low
> 
> Despite cool temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean in January, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below normal. By the end of January, ice extent dropped below the extent observed in January 2007. Ice extent was unusually low in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, the one major area of the Arctic where temperatures remained warmer than normal.
> ...



Link as follows: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


----------



## brty (7 February 2010)

Sneak'n,



> Climate science tries, wherever possible, to use 30-year averaged data as it overcomes a range of multi-decadal cyclical anomalies.




SmellyT,



> So you're looking at a few of the outliers to make your argument? Seriously? Cherry picking is usually a misused term on the intertubes, but this, sir, is cherry picking.




Perhaps you missed this?? 


> brty .....nah... no point. The statistics are too little, too short in time.






> The low points getting lower on average. The high points getting lower on average. The sea ice change here is especially dramatic given that we've experienced only a small part of what we can expect in the long term (only about 0.3 of a degree in the period shown).




Seeing as you both think these statistics are so reliable a guide then can either of you explain this graph, from the same set of statistics.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png 

It shows an increase in Antarctic sea ice over the last 30 years, very clearly. The IPCC report states that Antarctic sea ice is growing at 1% per decade. Yet ALL the climate models have Antarctic sea ice as either stable at present and then declining, or if created ~10 years ago as declining, and continuing declination into the future (which means they are just wrong).

 None of the input parameters into the climate models include Antarctic sea ice increasing, yet the sets of figures you both want to force down everyones throat, clearly show an increase in Antarctic sea ice.

What I can really see happening is that all changes must be due to man-made global warming according to the alarmists. Warmer here, PROOF. Colder there, PROOF. Less ice here, PROOF. More ice there, PROOF. 

brty


----------



## sneak'n (7 February 2010)

brty said:


> Seeing as you both think these statistics are so reliable a guide then can either of you explain this graph, from the same set of statistics.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
> 
> ...



Unfortunately the anomaly in your chart shows a statistically insignificant decrease on the longer term trend at this point in time.
I did, however, raise the issue in previous posts about the marked climatic differences being experienced at opposite Poles, especially with regard to sea ice extent.  
I am not sure that you have given us anything more or different from positions explained elsewhere.


----------



## wayneL (7 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> I provided an explanation of the approaches Monckton takes in mischievously using data.




Although I think said approach is counter-productive, it's a bit rich that the AGW cultists criticize the approach, as it is part of their own stock in trade.

Sceptics need only state the unfettered truth to torpedo the "co2" based AGW hypothesis and much of the purported "empirical" (pffffft) evidence of runaway global warming.


----------



## SmellyTerror (7 February 2010)

> What I can really see happening is that all changes must be due to man-made global warming according to the alarmists. Warmer here, PROOF. Colder there, PROOF. Less ice here, PROOF. More ice there, PROOF.




It's almost as if, when looking at global climate change, we should look at the whole world. Who would have thought of this concept without we forum-goers? 

I've been saying over and over and over and over and over and over again that *some local areas are supposed to get colder*. It is expected. It has been expected for decades. Global means GLOBAL.

If there is an increase in Antarctic sea ice, but a decline in ice globally, what does that tell you about the ice that *isn't* antarctic sea ice? That's right: it's declining at a higher rate than the overall trend. The sea, as I'm sure you know, resists temperature change (compare temperature ranges near the coast to areas just inland). Sea ice has ALWAYS been expected to take longer to show any change from warming.

Here's a nice simple explanation from someone who knows more than us:



> "There's been a change in atmospheric circulation around Antarctica related to the stratospheric ozone depletion and this actually causes stronger winds, which then pushes the ice away from the coast in some regions of Antarctica, which actually then causes more new ice formation and increases the overall sea ice in that region," she said.
> 
> "In other parts of Antarctica the temperatures have been decreasing and this is again sort of what we've expected to see, at least according to what the climate models tell us should be happening".
> ...
> ...



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/23/2550456.htm

NOTE WELL: the data about increasing antarctic sea ice comes from the same global conspiracy of scientists apparently dedicated to the cause of hiding conflicting data to push their agenda of world domination and phat paychecks.

Strange they didn't try to hide this one, isn't it? Sure is a pretty inept conspiracy that has nevertheless managed to stop any proof getting out that it exists, despite the thousands of people involved who would profit from exposing it all...

PS (again): for anyone interested in a fairly readable summary of the sea ice issue, please see here: http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html


----------



## sneak'n (7 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> Although I think said approach is counter-productive, it's a bit rich that the AGW cultists criticize the approach, as it is part of their own stock in trade.



We are agreed that the approach is counter-productive.  That so, it cuts both ways.



> Sceptics need only state the unfettered truth to torpedo the "co2" based AGW hypothesis and much of the purported "empirical" (pffffft) evidence of runaway global warming.



I am at a loss to find this "unfettered truth", so your help would be appreciated.  It is definitely not apparent in this thread.


----------



## So_Cynical (7 February 2010)

brty said:


> Seeing as you both think these statistics are so reliable a guide then can either of you explain this graph, from the same set of statistics.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
> 
> It shows an increase in Antarctic sea ice over the last 30 years, very clearly. The IPCC report states that Antarctic sea ice is growing at 1% per decade. Yet ALL the climate models have Antarctic sea ice as either stable at present and then declining, or if created ~10 years ago as declining, and continuing declination into the future (which means they are just wrong).




Yet from the same site http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg clearly shows a reduction in overall sea ice over the last 50 years.


----------



## wayneL (7 February 2010)

sneak'n said:


> We are agreed that the approach is counter-productive.  That so, it cuts both ways.



Isn't that what I just said? 


> I am at a loss to find this "unfettered truth", so your help would be appreciated.  It is definitely not apparent in this thread.




One must venture outside of the confines of their own biases... and this thread.


----------



## brty (7 February 2010)

SmellyT,



> I've been saying over and over and over and over and over and over again that some local areas are supposed to get colder.




You and every other true believer, every bit of change is PROOF of global warming, not just proof of constant change, as has always happened in the past.

The "insignificant" change in Antarctic sea ice of 100,000 sq km  was the level included in the IPCC report 2007, based on figures up to the end of 2005. This is in the IPCC report chapter 4.4.2. The same source also says....



> (equivalent to approximately –2.7% per decade)




...when referring to the decrease in Arctic sea ice. I suppose that is nearly 4%.

Have a really good look at the Antarctic sea ice rate of change since the end of 2005, it shows the area of sea ice increasing at a faster rate than before, yet ignored in the models, ignored by the IPCC, ignored by the climate change religious zealots.

All I want the true believers to do is have an open mind, look at the evidence in an unbiased way, look at the raw data themselves, the unaltered data that is. Everywhere I look the data on climate has been adjusted. I am open to all evidence, not a 'true non-believer', if someone can show me data that has not been adjusted and then offer proof that it is not a normal natural change then i will reserve the right to change my opinion.

brty


----------



## brty (7 February 2010)

So_Cynical,



> clearly shows a reduction in overall sea ice over the last 50 years.




Sure it does... even though it shows only 30 years of records. 

Do you work for the IPCC with a use of data like that??

brty


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 February 2010)

We had some nice gentle follow up rain in Townsville over the weekend. Not enough to sit in and read boring reports on Weather Change, but nice enough.

The Climate Changers are in more and more strife with dodgy data " on the Aussie Street". I haven't checked any other "streets"

We need more convincing and I personally feel that all the so-called experts who wasted so much avgas on trips and conventions and tried to foist a tax on us for a non existent scare, should be prosecuted, so that it doesn't happen again.

And I do not have to be a scientist to demand this. Arguments need to be in ordinary language with easy to understand proofs. This summer in N.Queensland is no different from many before.

Avgas does not grow on trees.

gg


----------



## basilio (8 February 2010)

> And I do not have to be a scientist to demand this. Arguments need to be in ordinary language with easy to understand proofs. This summer in N.Queensland is no different from many before.




You know GG if you ever chose to pick up a simple primary school science book or  perhaps a secondary school science book you would have all the clear, simple arguments regarding  global warming that are required. 

And just to reiterate 101 of climate change

*Climate ain't weather *

The reality that you never seem to have gone past this fact perhaps underpins your inability/unwillingness to come to terms with the big picture.


----------



## sneak'n (8 February 2010)

brty said:


> Sure it does... even though it shows only 30 years of records.
> 
> Do you work for the IPCC with a use of data like that??
> 
> brty



His reference was to data available at the "site".  
The site has data sets that go back over 100 years, with varying degrees of accuracy the further back it goes.
Is it the custom at ASF to read selectively and remark rudely?


----------



## SmellyTerror (8 February 2010)

> You and every other true believer, every bit of change is PROOF of global warming, not just proof of constant change, as has always happened in the past.





...despite me (and the scientists) saying over and over that every bit of change is NOT proof. In fact, your quote above is in direct response to me saying it AGAIN.

Are you just trolling?



> The "insignificant" change in Antarctic sea ice of 100,000 sq km...




1. Please look up the concept of statistical significance. It's usually taught in first year uni. It's not that hard. Go. Look. I'll wait.

For the people who aren't pretending to know what they're talking about, here's the figure from the report he's quoting: "_the antarctic results show a small positive trend of 5.6  ± 9.2 Ã— 103 km² yr–1 (0.47  ± 0.8% per decade)". _Note that the error margin is larger than the actual reading. That's why it's not significant: although our best figure shows it's probably happening to some extent, the error margin inlcudes a very real possiblity that there's no effect at all.

Compare this with _“a significant decreasing trend in arctic sea ice extent of –33  ± 7.4 Ã— 103 km² yr–1 (equivalent to –2.7  ± 0.6% per decade)_”. See how that’s different?

2. You apparently sneer at 100,000 km^2 being "insignificant", but you think a million or more of negative change overall is "EXACTLY the same".



> ...when referring to the decrease in Arctic sea ice. I suppose that is nearly 4%.
> 
> Have a really good look at the Antarctic sea ice rate of change since the end of 2005, it shows the area of sea ice increasing at a faster rate than before, yet ignored in the models, ignored by the IPCC, ignored by the climate change religious zealots.




In the more than two years since the report, scientists have been working. What do you think they do all day? Sit around holding “We’re So Right!” parties? They’ve never said they knew everything there was to know.

So they’ve found out more. And they’re reporting it as they get it. So yes, it looks like the Antarctic increase is more than thought (so instead of insignificant, it’s “really close to zero”, now being only barely above the error margin). At the same time, though, and despite this region’s increase in ice, ice overall has declined much FASTER than was reported in the IPCC report.

…and this supports your case, *how* exactly?

And the reason you know about the Antarctic ice increase is BECAUSE it was reported by the “climate change religious zealots”. *THAT’S HOW YOU KNOW*. So in what way are they ignoring it? What do you want them to do? Go back in time and amend the 2007 report?



> All I want the true believers to do is have an open mind, look at the evidence in an unbiased way, look at the raw data themselves, the unaltered data that is. Everywhere I look the data on climate has been adjusted. I am open to all evidence, not a 'true non-believer', if someone can show me data that has not been adjusted and then offer proof that it is not a normal natural change then i will reserve the right to change my opinion.




Look, this stuff is complicated. This is cutting edge science dealing with a notoriously complex system. You simply cannot expect the science to be understandable by everyone who reads a forum. At some point you just have to trust that the people who spend their entire careers working on this stuff know what they’re talking about. It’s not a cabal: anyone who wants to put in the years of effort can become a climate scientist, too. Feel free.

You’ve shown over and over that you haven’t the slightest idea how to interpret the data. Here you are flailing about with the sea ice data – is that “altered”? If so, I wonder why you’re using it to back up your case.

Your arguments basically come down to ignorance. YOU don’t understand what the big heads are saying, therefore they’re lyin’ and tryin’ to steal yer money and yer wimmins.

If only the raw data was released! Then the sceptics of the world could pore over it and expose this big lie for what it is. Oh, if only they’d release the DATA!!! Everywhere you look, ALTERED DATA. Where are the raw feeds? Locked away, I’m sure. Hidden by the conspiracy. Can anyone breach that kind of security? Can anyone step up? With this last, mighty weapon, it’d all be over for the warministas.


…well here you go:

GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation) 
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1) 
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.2) 
World Monthly Surface Station Climatology UCAR
Antarctic weather stations 
European weather stations (ECA) 
Italian Meterological Society IMS 
Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab) 
World Glacier Monitoring Service 
Argo float data 
International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations) 
AERONET Aerosol information 

Satellite feeds:
AMSU 
SORCE (Solar irradiance)
NASA A-train 

More links to paleo and other data here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw

Let us know how you get on.


----------



## brty (8 February 2010)

Sneak'n,

Looking at the longer term data we get......



> Because most of the direct observations of sea ice (1870-1971 period) are from ships at sea, they are generally the most complete near the ice edge. The conditions north of the ice edge are often assumed to be 100% covered during this period.




followed by this........



> The satellite era has shown otherwise with concentrations between 70-90% frequently occurring well north of the ice edge in the post-1972 data.




You don't see anything wrong here do you?? Like a discrepancy of between 10%-30% of actual sea ice coverage. Now the good scientists have applied all sorts of wonderful statistical chicanery to smooth the data. The problem being that by doing this you can get any answer you want by changing the assumptions, like this..... 







> 15% is commonly used




Which comes back to one of my original points, that there is no clean data set, that has not been adjusted, that shows climate change of any significance, in a world where the climate does change all the time. This is even before we get to any discussion on weather  it is man made, or if it is possibly a good thing (like keeping us from having an ice age).

brty


----------



## sneak'n (8 February 2010)

brty said:


> Sneak'n,
> Which comes back to one of my original points, that there is no clean data set, that has not been adjusted, that shows climate change of any significance, in a world where the climate does change all the time. This is even before we get to any discussion on weather  it is man made, or if it is possibly a good thing (like keeping us from having an ice age).
> 
> brty



There are no very long term data sets that are consistent due to a range of factors including standards, methodologies, and technology. In the case of sea ice, the 30 year average referred to in my earlier post provides, for the first time for this data series, reliable, consistent and accurate information.
Trends are identifiable through the time series, and are typically self-evident.


----------



## Julia (8 February 2010)

Smelly Terror, when you're quoting a post to which you're replying, could you please click on the link which brings up the quote including the nic of the original poster, especially when you're arguing with that person.

Thanks.


----------



## wayneL (8 February 2010)

basilio said:


> And just to reiterate 101 of climate change
> 
> *Climate ain't weather *
> 
> The reality that you never seem to have gone past this fact perhaps underpins your inability/unwillingness to come to terms with the big picture.




Logic 101:

A hoof ain't a horse, but no hoof, no horse.

Climate is made up of weather. Ignoring weather when discussing climate is rather stupid, though single weather events, or single anomalous seasons/years may not be statistically relevant, but they do add to the empirical record of what is called climate.

BTW - Warm mongers aren't averse to citing weather events as support for their canon. They do it all the time.


----------



## SmellyTerror (8 February 2010)

> Smelly Terror, when you're quoting a post to which you're replying, could you please click on the link which brings up the quote including the nic of the original poster, especially when you're arguing with that person.
> 
> Thanks.




Sorry.

That was the last time. :

I could point out that the person I was answering wasn't doing it either...



wayneL said:


> Climate is made up of weather. Ignoring weather when discussing climate is rather stupid, though single weather events, or single anomalous seasons/years may not be statistically relevant, but they do add to the empirical record of what is called climate.




Global climate change, though, refers to the *climate of the globe*. It's cunningly hidden right there in the name. I've already explained to you that local conditions are exepcted to vary towards cold as well as hot. There's a long discussion about sea ice right there in the thread.

Adding up *all* the weather conditins *is* how they come up with the overall measurments of climate. How do you think they do it?

Do you just read enough to find a point you can contest? You're really not interested in the facts, are you? Just want to justify your prejudice.



wayneL said:


> Warm mongers aren't averse to citing weather events as support for their canon. They do it all the time.




Someone else does something idiotic, so it's ok if you do it too?

"Warm mongers", assuming they include anyone who believes that the people who know what they're talking about... know what they're talking about, consists of, at the very least, millions of people. There are going to be idiots in there. Which is why I'm quoting from the scientists who do NOT point to every local condition and hoot like chimps at an obelisk.

The media's representation of science is about as shallow and moronic as their coverage of finance. The fact that pollies and talking heads can't find their arses with both hands is hardly a revelation. And there are plenty of forum dwellers on both sides that don't have a clue.

Copying their idiocy does not win you points. Why do you keep doing it?


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 February 2010)

Meanwhile, on another planet far, far away (or so it may seem)...



> Up to 20 million farm animals may die in Mongolia before spring as *the fiercest winter in living memory* grips the country, International Aid Agencies warned today.
> 
> Sky News reported that local experts have told the Red Cross *half the entire country's livestock could be wiped out.*
> 
> ...






> The Mongolian Government has appealed for food, medicine and animal food to combat one of the country's worst natural disasters.
> 
> *The poorer herding families are left with insufficient food supplies to last out the winter. Many have taken out high interest loans to pay for animal fodder which they can't meet.*




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-freeze-to-death/story-e6frf7jx-1225827780294

What a horrible situation for these poor folk to be in. The forgotten people. What have we got to complain about? 

To be brutally honest, when it comes to tin tacks these people might argue it's better to cope with possibly warmer temperatures with more lush growth in preference to freezing to death?

Sad.


----------



## derty (8 February 2010)

As a slight divergence to the current back and forth. 

For those that claimed "It's the Sun stupid" and hailed the extended solar minimum as the arrival of the next Maunder Minimum, you may be interested to know that Solar Cycle 24 is well underway and firmly established. 

By your predictions we should see some significant warming as the current cycle builds to a peak. 
http://spaceweather.com/


----------



## Calliope (8 February 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> Meanwhile, on another planet far, far away (or so it may seem)...
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-freeze-to-death/story-e6frf7jx-1225827780294
> 
> ...




Yes, Aussiejeff this is a very sad story and certainly depressed me greatly. They are such a hardy and independent race and don't deserve this. 

The story trivialises the debate on these pages about a few degrees temperate change in decades ahead. What's happening in Mongolia is here and now to people with a tiny carbon footprint.


----------



## moXJO (8 February 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> Meanwhile, on another planet far, far away (or so it may seem)...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep which disaster scenario will unfold, global warming or the next ice age. I don't like the cold so here's to global warming. Personally I miss swine flu and meteorites, Y2K was pretty good too.




> As we reported last week, the Armagh observatory, which has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years. predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next 20 years as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.
> 
> “Based on the past Armagh measurements, this suggests that over the next two decades, global temperatures may fall by about 2 degrees C ”” that is, to a level lower than any we have seen in the last 100 years….”Temperatures have already fallen by about 0.5 degrees C over the past 12 months and, if this is only the start of it, it would be a serious concern,” concludes David Watt




http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientist-predicts-ice-age-within-10-years.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html


----------



## wayneL (8 February 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Global climate change, though, refers to the *climate of the globe*. It's cunningly hidden right there in the name. I've already explained to you that local conditions are exepcted to vary towards cold as well as hot. There's a long discussion about sea ice right there in the thread.
> 
> Adding up *all* the weather conditins *is* how they come up with the overall measurments of climate. How do you think they do it?



But we keep being told that weather is not climate, as if there is no link. It's a furphy designed to deflect the observations that contradict the ludicrous assertions of warm mongers.




> you just read enough to find a point you can contest? You're really not interested in the facts, are you? Just want to justify your prejudice.



Incorrect. When I see a ludicrous double standard, I feel I must point it out in the interests of developing better debate.



> Someone else does something idiotic, so it's ok if you do it too?



I must point out that that is something I haven't done in this thread. I merely point out the hypocrisy and duplicity of the warm mongers argument; that what warm mongers accuse rational sceptics of, is often they're own tactic. They criticise what they are most guilty of themselves.



> "Warm mongers", assuming they include anyone who believes that the people who know what they're talking about... know what they're talking about, consists of, at the very least, millions of people. There are going to be idiots in there. Which is why I'm quoting from the scientists who do NOT point to every local condition and hoot like chimps at an obelisk.



Warm Mongers are those who adhere to the hypothesis of co2 based, catastrophic global warming, preach is as fact, or as settled science, in the face of evidence to the contrary, to the exclusion of all other hypotheses.

Warm Mongers are anti-scientific because they either spurn or corrupt the scientific process. We are seeing this is rampant via climategate and subsequent revelations.



> The media's representation of science is about as shallow and moronic as their coverage of finance. The fact that pollies and talking heads can't find their arses with both hands is hardly a revelation. And there are plenty of forum dwellers on both sides that don't have a clue.
> 
> Copying their idiocy does not win you points. Why do you keep doing it?




I do not rely on the main stream media for my information any more than I rely on it for my financial information. In fact, the MSM (apart from the odd blogger) is almost universally pro AGM. I've lost count of the number of argumentative fallacies, mistruths and misrepresentations you have employed to prop up your emotional investiture in AGW. So really you are hoist by your own petard there.

If you have some deep emotional need to insult me directly, at least have the intellectual integrity to do so on the basis of fact, rather than the above.

As far as point scoring, as I said to sneak'n, if keeping some sort of pathetic score and deluding yourself that you are winning them by continuously playing the man, is important to your scarcely existent self-esteem, then I am happy for you to claim points.

I am only interested in the truth, plus having a bit of a laugh arguing with some delusional zealot unable to break free from a raging confirmation bias on the Internet.


----------



## derty (8 February 2010)

moXJO said:


> > As we reported last week, the Armagh observatory, which has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years. predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next 20 years as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.
> >
> > “Based on the past Armagh measurements, this suggests that over the next two decades, global temperatures may fall by about 2 degrees C ”” that is, to a level lower than any we have seen in the last 100 years….”Temperatures have already fallen by about 0.5 degrees C over the past 12 months and, if this is only the start of it, it would be a serious concern,” concludes David Watt
> 
> ...



That article was written in August 2008 whilst the solar minimum was occurring. The commencement of cycle 24 surely invalidates the bulk of that articles conclusions. Though, it will be interesting to see if William Livingstone is correct in predicting that "the sunspots will all but vanish in 2015".


----------



## wayneL (8 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> I do not rely on the main stream media for my information




Although a quick scan of recent stories reveal that the worm is turning. As the IPCC continues to lose credibility, journalists begin to become more willing to step outside of the AGW mantra.


----------



## moXJO (8 February 2010)

derty said:


> That article was written in August 2008 whilst the solar minimum was occurring. The commencement of cycle 24 surely invalidates the bulk of that articles conclusions. Though, it will be interesting to see if William Livingstone is correct in predicting that "the sunspots will all but vanish in 2015".




Ppphhheeww.... no need to get the thermal underwear out yet then. How exactly do they predict sunspot activity (and if it will vanish) anyway?


----------



## derty (8 February 2010)

moXJO said:


> Ppphhheeww.... no need to get the thermal underwear out yet then. How exactly do they predict sunspot activity (and if it will vanish) anyway?



They have been measuring the characteristics of the sunspots from between 1990 and 2005 and have noticed that the dark bits of the sunspots are getting warmer and the strength of the magnetic perturbations that produce the sunspots are becoming weaker. This measured warming of sunspots and weakening of the magnetic field are independent of the sunspot cycle. When they join the dots sunspots will not be able to form in 2015.

abstract:







> We have observed spectroscopic changes in temperature sensitive molecular lines, in the magnetic splitting of an Fe I line, and in the continuum brightness of over 1000 sunspot umbrae from 1990-2005. All three measurements show consistent trends in which the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra have become warmer (45K per year) and their magnetic field strengths have decreased (77 Gauss per year), independently of the normal 11-year sunspot cycle. A linear extrapolation of these trends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015.



paper: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/livingston-penn_sunspots2.pdf


----------



## moXJO (8 February 2010)

derty said:


> They have been measuring the characteristics of the sunspots from between 1990 and 2005 and have noticed that the dark bits of the sunspots are getting warmer and the strength of the magnetic perturbations that produce the sunspots are becoming weaker. This measured warming of sunspots and weakening of the magnetic field are independent of the sunspot cycle. When they join the dots sunspots will not be able to form in 2015.
> 
> abstract:
> paper: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/livingston-penn_sunspots2.pdf




Thanks for the info derty.


----------



## sneak'n (8 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> As far as point scoring, as I said to sneak'n, if keeping some sort of pathetic score and deluding yourself that you are winning them by continuously playing the man, is important to your scarcely existent self-esteem, then I am happy for you to claim points.



I could challenge you to find a single instance in this thread where I have played the man, as you put it.  The "point" you conceded in this specific instance was that the example you tendered was in fact the opposite of your contention.  It was a gracious concession.
Whereas, I have challenged you to provide a justification for several of your claims and your response is to find another reason not to.
I have also challenged you to present your take on the science, and you replied that it would take too long, initially, and then proclaimed contentment with your position.



> I am only interested in the truth, plus having a bit of a laugh arguing with some delusional zealot unable to break free from a raging confirmation bias on the Internet



Provide evidence please?

On topic, this thread remains devoid of any reasoned science that would give the initiator any pleasure.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> Logic 101:
> 
> A hoof ain't a horse, but no hoof, no horse.




Yes Wayne I agree. It becomes even more ridiculous when these same Screwtape scientific shapeshifters think it's practical for a grazier/stockman/farmer to trade-in the horse because of it's smelly emissions for a over-priced Prius with no brakes. 

Because the horse's emissions are more dangerous to "life".

Anyway here's a vid of a horse named Hoof Hearted.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (14 February 2010)

From.... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/daily-mail-the-jones-u-turn/

Full Article here

*Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995*

...Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.....​
Seems to be rather a strong case for legal intervention....Considering if the ludicrous copenhagen treaty had actually been signed by Rudd and other world leaders - we would be well and truly toast.

The excuse that Jones relies on is: "lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics". *Utter rubbish* - the amount of planning, funding, media and political bias to drive the whole planet to accept AGW has been undertaken with absolute precision. Why? To achieve the key goal - Signing of an international treaty to create a world government.


----------



## ghotib (14 February 2010)

Original interview here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#

As Watts Up With That says, the Daily Mail headline is quite something. Something like "grossly misleading" or "grotesquely distorted". The account of the interview is pretty crook too. 

Ghoti


----------



## MACCA350 (15 February 2010)

Anyone watch the a-pac channel?
They've been showing "Lord Monckton & Tim Lambert debate Climate Change in Sydney" hosted by Alan Jones all weekend.

First time I've seen a pro anthropogenic global warming scientist accept a televised debate. 

I am disappointed it hasn't been shown on the major channels in prime time.

cheers


----------



## wayneL (15 February 2010)

ghotib said:


> Original interview here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#
> 
> As Watts Up With That says, the Daily Mail headline is quite something. Something like "grossly misleading" or "grotesquely distorted". The account of the interview is pretty crook too.
> 
> Ghoti




I agree that the Daily Mail reportage stinks. But it seems to be par for the course with climate change. We have been subject to the other side of the coin (apocalyptic scaremongering based on junk science and sensationalism) for many years now.

Credible sceptics have been no less misrepresented in the past.

Jones' explanations do not answer anything, rather, they prompt more questions. They do not seem honest. A competent barrister (which is who should be conducting cross-examination in a court of law) would have torn this to shreds.


----------



## basilio (18 February 2010)

So how did the IPCC get it so wrong?  All these  huge mistakes and questionable research ? If one accepted some of the stories coming from  certain lobby groups you would just about throw the IPCC out and start all over again...

In that context I came across an analysis which explains just how the IPPC works and discusses just what this "stream" of errors really are. And in the process it highlights the deceptive way these issues have been presented to us. And perhaps that should make us think who is actually looking for the truth versus discovering typos or errata that is the inevitable result of very large  publications. If you are serious about understanding how this works take 10 minutes to read the full story rather than accepting the pithy beat ups we are fed as sound bites. 

The takeaway message is that climate change largely caused by human actions is real and, unless we address the causes,  will create a  new world that won't be human friendly.



> IPCC  errors  Fact and Fiction,
> Real Climate
> Currently, a few errors –and supposed errors– in the last IPCC report (“AR4″) are making the media rounds – together with a lot of distortion and professional spin by parties interested in discrediting climate science. Time for us to sort the wheat from the chaff: which of these putative errors are real, and which not? And what does it all mean, for the IPCC in particular, and for climate science more broadly?
> 
> ...



[/QUOTE]

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51586

_PS. And please,  don't even think about pointing to record snowfalls and cold snaps as "evidence" that GW is a beat up. Fact is that these events are well predicted in the climate models around GW. The short story is with GW there is more moisture in the atmosphere (higher temperatures  causing extra evaporation) and that when other climatic factors come to bear this extra moisture will come down as rain ( ie floods...) or super snow storms_.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 February 2012)

It would appear that even The Age, that left wing publication from Melbourne has now abandoned Tim Flannery and the Climate Change Hoax.

Is this the flood before the deluge.

What will the Greens and the Left worry us about next, Carbon?

gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy (18 February 2012)

basilio said:


> So how did the IPCC get it so wrong?




LOL - looking back at your assertions.....They didn't get anything wrong - the policy makers simply published whatever fantasy they wished and hoped with enough PR the more gullible would climb aboard. Even with the vastly different historic temperatures published between AR1 and AR3 that suddenly shows no medieval warming due to Mann's hockey stick - the gullible (and there's several in this forum, right Basilio?) unquestioningly lapped up the gravy as fact.

The alarmist gravy train is unwinding as realisation of the fraud sets in. Hang in there Basilio - there might be a few more squirts of gravy left before the funding is cut.


----------



## orr (18 February 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It would appear that ....... The Age





Has a big fat new major shareholder.
 Or, of course, an extremely prescient and cutting cartoonist. Who wouldn't mind a few invites to hither and tither, if of course they were to come up. Even one like say, being allowed to come to work and be payed for it.


----------



## Ruby (19 February 2012)

Wonderful cartoon GG - says it all!!


----------



## rederob (29 March 2019)

Some people have  long track records in prosecuting their case on this topic, but never were able to understand the topic.
On returning to the ASF site after 10 years absence I wondered how much had changed.
Well, a lightning bolt soon struck.
People don't change much.
And in this topic neither has the scientific evidence.
Yet despite it, people act like Canute.
Australia is an interesting country in that poor leadership and an ill informed element within the media have managed to largely spit the population on climate change.
It reminded me of the dinner conversations I had while in America and we discussed gun control.  Those for it admired what Australia did and knew the facts - populations with restricted access to weapons have fewer deaths by guns - kind of a no brainer.  But facts are not relevant in the USA because *influence *rules.
Facts are a real problem.
More so when they override baseless notions and do irreparable  harm.


----------



## kahuna1 (29 March 2019)

*Top 10 climate change myths*





DON'T WATCH ... you may learn something !!

It may also upset you ...

Did you know the Great Barrier Reef is 25% the size it was 30 years ago ? 

The chances of it being 10% the size it was in 1985 in 2050 are less than 10% ... less than 10% and* nothing will change this outcome !!*

There are a few bigger issues as time goes on even by 2050.


----------



## rederob (19 May 2019)

This morning I wondered why a party with actual policies could be be defeated by a party that had none of merit. 
So I came here for inspiration:


Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is becoming increasingly apparent that it is a load of codswallop.






wayneL said:


> Beyond a few vested interests and those zealots who have embraced it as a religion, co2 based AGW is a dead issue, the science largely discredited, the proponents caught out BSing and humiliated.






beaul said:


> Not one in thousands I have met have agreed with Global warming, they have seen it all before, that is, severe weather patterns etc.






Julia said:


> The only factor you have omitted is that there is no proof that any change in climate is anthropogenic in nature.






wayneL said:


> Ad hominem is the prime tactic of the warmists against skeptics and you have immediately reverted to type, despite dissing the tactic... hmmmmm.






brty said:


> What the real science shows is that changes occur very quickly, the climate tends to change abruptly and plant and animal systems evolve into something new to accommodate the changes in climate.






Garpal Gumnut said:


> Christopher Monckton has quite a good mind and I would heed carefully what he says.






GumbyLearner said:


> You think that there is this mystical moral duty to science that exists whereby people around the world regardless of their economic station in which they live require a huge tax in order to save the planet.






OzWaveGuy said:


> The further the IPCC and cohorts are investigated the deeper the scam becomes....






prozac said:


> Do a search for Lord Christopher Monckton. This knowledgeable gentleman speaks most eloquently on the subject.






Julia said:


> What I do find interesting is post Copenhagen the gradual and quite subtle backdown by the warmist scientists and followers that the science is absolute, definite and unequivocal.






OzWaveGuy said:


> The alarmist gravy train is unwinding as realisation of the fraud sets in. Hang in there Basilio - there might be a few more squirts of gravy left before the funding is cut.



People who could know better chose to instead wallow in blind faith and ignorance.
Their justifications were creative when they weren't plain evasive.
What the average punter doesn't "*get*," because of the polarisation stirred by vested interests against the science, is best summed up below:


ghotib said:


> One thing I've realised is that nobody started out with a hypothesis that humans were warming the planet. Scientists from many different disciplines were trying to understand climate, and the role of human activities only became apparent as the understanding grew.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2019)

rederob said:


> This morning I wondered why a party with actual policies could be be defeated by a party that had none of merit.




Simple people fall for scare campaigns.

(Note the absence of a comma after the first word  )


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2019)

What are the stages of grief again?


----------



## rederob (19 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> What are the stages of grief again?



For me it's seeing a thread title that is nonsensical.
Climate change is a *thing*.
It exists because it has been measured.  Nobody was advocating for it to magically appear.
The people who have determined it exists actually prefer that it did not.  What they advocate is that we should be aware of what happens as a result.
We probably don't want our children and grandchildren to suffer grief over climate change.  But maybe if we, like many posting here, pretend it's not happening then everything will be fine.
Not me.
I got firm aim on some flying pigs.


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2019)

rederob said:


> For me it's seeing a thread title that is nonsensical.
> Climate change is a *thing*.
> It exists because it has been measured.  Nobody was advocating for it to magically appear.
> The people who have determined it exists actually prefer that it did not.  What they advocate is that we should be aware of what happens as a result.
> ...



Action does need to be taken. 
I think the environmentalists need a better tact then the divisiveness that has gone on. The lefts tactics are starting to fall flat worldwide.


----------



## rederob (19 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Action does need to be taken.
> I think the environmentalists need a better tact then the divisiveness that has gone on. The lefts tactics are starting to fall flat worldwide.



This is *not *about "environmentalism."
The science in unequivocal, yet you suggest there is "divisiveness."
That being the case, it has only to do with the divide between knowledge and ignorance.


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2019)

rederob said:


> This is *not *about "environmentalism."
> The science in unequivocal, yet you suggest there is "divisiveness."
> That being the case, it has only to do with the divide between knowledge and ignorance.



Yeah but being a dick about it doesn't sell. What do you think is going to happen.
"The world ends in 12 years" type of comments from idiots in high places doesn’t help. 

You have to sell it to the masses. Not tell them they are the greatest evil on the planet.


----------



## brty (19 May 2019)

Unlike some people, when the circumstances and evidence change, I change my opinion. Quoting me from 9 years ago is not appropriate in this case.


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Simple people fall for scare campaigns.
> 
> (Note the absence of a comma after the first word  )



Indeed. The simple may not realize who is simple and who isn't,  however.

Duelling Simpletons?


----------



## Junior (19 May 2019)

rederob said:


> This morning I wondered why a party with actual policies could be be defeated by a party that had none of merit.
> So I came here for inspiration:
> 
> People who could know better chose to instead wallow in blind faith and ignorance.
> ...




ALP policy regarding CC and the environment wasn't great.  And supporting a vast new coal mine didn't really fit in well with their message.  Just because their CC policy is 'better' than the Coalition, that doesn't mean everyone will vote for them.  

Many of their other policies didn't sit well with punters, plus the simple fact that Bill isn't very likeable.


----------



## rederob (19 May 2019)

brty said:


> Unlike some people, when the circumstances and evidence change, I change my opinion. Quoting me from 9 years ago is not appropriate in this case.



Circumstances never changed, and nor did the evidence - we just have more now.
I carefully read your posts.
You selectively chose information to make a case, and that's pretty standard practice for those in denial of climate science.


----------



## IFocus (19 May 2019)

Interesting take Red I know people who are highly intelligent and their whole careers rely on the same physics / science as as CC.

Yet they will tell you its a con because they don't like some one who is is a advocate etc.

When I point out the relationship of CO and other gases they completely agree....go figure.


----------



## brty (19 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Circumstances never changed, and nor did the evidence - we just have more now.
> I carefully read your posts.
> You selectively chose information to make a case, and that's pretty standard practice for those in denial of climate science.




There you have it, I was for quite a few years a climate sceptic, I never denied it, I always looked for more evidence. 
These days I find there is more than enough conclusive evidence for man's impact on the climate, but remain very sceptical about whether we can do anything about it.

Turning to renewables only over the next few decades might make a difference, but it also might not. However turning to renewables means a huge build that requires massive amounts of energy to happen.

Have you ever worked out how much energy would be required to build a renewables only future, by 2050??


----------



## rederob (19 May 2019)

brty said:


> Have you ever worked out how much energy would be required to build a renewables only future, by 2050??



It used to be that *all *the energy to "make" renewables came from fossil fuels.
Nowadays, depending where the making takes place, it could be less than 50% from fossil fuels. And each year that figure decreases.

By the way, you can insert 2010 and 1980 Arctic sea ice data into this interactive chart to see how far out you were at post #151.


----------



## Logique (20 May 2019)

Referring to the thread title, 'law-fare' is the M.O. of the 'Progressives'.  

When Bjorn Lomborg (a climate change believer), was run out of Australia by the universities, a rational approach to climate change went with him.


----------



## Logique (20 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Simple people fall for scare campaigns.
> (Note the absence of a comma after the first word  )



Yeah like like _Medi-Scare_ and _Climate Change_. Those poor little school kids, they'll realize one day how ruthlessly they've been exploited


----------



## rederob (20 May 2019)

Logique said:


> Referring to the thread title, 'law-fare' is the M.O. of the 'Progressives'.
> When Bjorn Lomborg (a climate change believer), was run out of Australia by the universities, a rational approach to climate change went with him.



Too funny - you really don't know this topic, do you?
Here's a true scientist's view of Lomborg's ideas.


Logique said:


> Those poor little school kids, they'll realize one day how ruthlessly they've been exploited



Except that it is you who looks foolish here.  They are likely to be much better informed than you on climate matters given what you have posted so far.


----------

